Financial Remedy Proceedings
TYB v CAR (Non-Disclosure) (No 2): Financial Remedy
This case was about the husband’s failure to engage properly with the proceedings and provide full financial disclosure. The case is interesting, but due to the fact it is a decision made in the lower courts, it is not setting a new precedent, more restating cases in higher courts, namely: Mahtani (2025) EWFC 35 by James Ewins sitting as a deputy High Court judge and VTY v GDB (2025) EWFC 110 by Recorder Rhys Taylor.
DDJ (Deputy District Judge) Hodson’s judgment in TYB v CAR (Non-Disclosure) (No 2) [2025] EWFC 263 (B) provides an example of how the family court responds to persistent non-disclosure in financial remedy proceedings. Delivered on 30 June 2025, the ruling is from a two-day final hearing in June 2025 following the earlier part-heard hearing from December 2023.
Background
The parties married in 2017 and separated in January 2020, shortly after the birth of their only child. The wife, unable to work due to medical issues, has lived in basic accommodation on Universal Credit since that time. Meanwhile, the husband, a high-earning international sales executive, who admitted to earning at least £60,000 per month, and spending lavishly on luxury rentals and entertainment, was living in a £4300 per month luxury flat. Despite his financial assets, he failed to provide financial support or meaningful disclosure throughout the proceedings.
Non-Disclosure and Judicial Response
The husband’s claim was that he had a dramatic downfall in income from September 2022, a month after the wife issued her Form A. The judge found this to be convenient, alongside the fact that the husband’s tales differed when asked in different hearings to explain this alleged downturn in fortune.
The court went on to identify and list over 20 separate failures by the husband to comply with disclosure orders; the judge listed them from ‘a’ to ‘x’ and said he would stop as he was running out of alphabet! These failures included missing Form E submissions, ignoring third-party disclosure directions, and failing to explain suspicious financial activity. The judge concluded that the husband had plenty of opportunity to show evidence of his hardship, but as nothing of note was provided, he had not demonstrated any material change in his financial circumstances and that his claims of hardship were likely dishonest.
The judgment emphasised that this was not merely a case of adverse inference. Rather, it was a straightforward failure to provide evidence of a claimed financial downturn. The court was entitled to proceed on the basis that the husband’s financial position remained unchanged.
Final Orders
Legal Significance
This case re-states the precedents in Mahtani [2025] EWFC 35 and VTY v GDB [2025] EWFC 110 in clarifying the court’s approach to non-disclosure. DDJ Hodson endorsed Recorder Rhys Taylor’s analysis on adverse inference and burden of proof, but framed the issue as one of basic fairness and procedural integrity.
The judgment also highlights the court’s willingness to protect vulnerable parties from financial manipulation and coercive control. The wife’s situation, living in basic accommodation and on benefits, while the husband enjoyed a luxury lifestyle, was described as “appalling discriminatory treatment” and “coercive and controlling behaviour.”
This order can be seen as a reminder that the family court will not tolerate strategic evasion. It reinforces the importance of full and frank disclosure and sets a precedent for robust judicial intervention when one party obstructs the process.
If you need help with your divorce financials, please do contact us.