WK v HN [2026] EWFC 169 (B)

Judgment date: 1 May 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/oj/2026/169

HHJ Owen. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings involving allegations of add-back, wanton and reckless dissipation, and alleged warehousing of funds through pharmacy businesses.

The parties were pharmacists, aged 35 and 34. They married in 2016, separated in 2022 and had one child, aged 6, who lived mainly with the wife (‘W’). The main assets were the former matrimonial home (‘FMH’), pharmacy business interests, pensions and other modest assets.

W alleged that the husband (‘H’) had dissipated or warehoused matrimonial assets through Pharmacy 1, Pharmacy 2 and transactions with associates, ‘Mr C’ and ‘Mr D’. She relied on a schedule of 248 challenged invoices and payments and sought substantial add-backs. H denied wrongdoing, saying the transactions were genuine business expenses, inter-company loans or commercial arrangements entered into under pressure while running the pharmacy and a COVID-19 vaccination centre.

HHJ Owen reviewed the authorities on conduct and add-back, including OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, Norris v Norris [2002] EWHC 2996 (Fam), Vaughan v Vaughan [2007] EWCA Civ 1085 and Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130. W had to prove the facts relied on, wanton and reckless dissipation, and an intention by H to deprive her of assets.

The judge rejected W’s conduct case. Although some transactions were suspicious or poorly documented, W had not proved wanton and reckless dissipation or warehousing by H. H was found to be an honest witness. The court accepted that he had been unwise in relying heavily on Mr C and Mr D, but found that any failings by them did not establish misconduct by H.

The court accepted that the profit-sharing agreement with Mr D for the COVID-19 vaccination programme was genuine. It also accepted that many payments to companies linked to Mr C related to business expenses or ventures entered into in good faith, including the proposed 'hub and spoke' automation project, even though that project had not progressed and aspects of Mr C’s evidence were concerning.

The single joint expert valued Pharmacy 1 at £1.631 million. No add-backs were made to the company balance sheet. However, the judge applied a 15% discount to reflect that H would retain an illiquid, risk-laden business asset while W would receive cash and the FMH proceeds, reducing the value to £1,386,350.

The FMH had sold subject to contract for £885,000, with equity of £548,610. The judge added back mortgage arrears and property debts, treating W as receiving £577,219 from the FMH. Pharmacy 2 and related companies were valued at nil. A £10,000 Porsche refund, £10,000 Aga refund and W’s wedding ring were added to the matrimonial pot.

The case was treated as a sharing case rather than a needs case. HHJ Owen concluded that the assets should be divided equally. W was to receive the FMH proceeds, topped up for arrears and debts, with H paying the remaining equalising sum in cash. In return, W was to transfer her 25% shareholding in Pharmacy 1 to H and resign as a director. The court rejected any continuing joint business ownership as incompatible with the parties’ conflict and co-parenting needs.

A pension sharing order was also approved to achieve capital equality between H’s pension CEV of £261,733 and W’s pension CEV of £127,955.

This judgment has not been certified as citable pursuant to the Practice Note (Citation of Cases: Restrictions and Rules) [2001] 1 WLR 1001.