In a contested financial remedy case, a High Court judge sitting in the Family Court found a husband was the ultimate beneficial owner of a trust, despite his claim to have almost no assets.
Key facts
- Who: Spouses in divorce financial proceedings where one says the other is concealing assets held through trusts or business interests
- From: 11 February 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: M K v S K [2026] EWFC 28
Mr Justice Peel gave judgment in the Family Court on 11 February 2026 in M K v S K [2026] EWFC 28, after a hearing on 20 to 23, 26, 27 and 30 January 2026. The judgment was delivered in private and published on condition that the anonymity of the parties and their family is strictly preserved. It refers to the parties as W (the wife) and H (the husband).
Background
W's case was that H was guilty of non-disclosure and that his presentation of almost nil assets was false. She said his accessible resources included the A Trust, which holds either 40% or 50% in a group of technology companies, and that further assets were likely held through other trusts, persons or structures. H denied any legal or beneficial interest in the trust or in other assets. He said the group was on the verge of insolvency and worthless.
W did not argue that the trust was a sham or a reviewable disposition under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The main focus was therefore the computation stage of the section 25 criteria: working out the assets before deciding how to divide them.
The combined costs stood at just over £850,000 (W £498,100, H £354,092). On 31 October 2025, H's updated offer was an equal share of the sale of the house, valued at £837,500, and an equal division of any inheritance from his mother (£77,211 each). W sought to keep the house, a lump sum of £5m, and a further lump sum to clear her liabilities.
The evidence and findings
The judge noted there was no documentation about the trust's origins. He described a sense that H largely treated the finances as one pot into which he dipped.
W photographed a whiteboard when clearing out the annexe in May 2024. It showed an organogram of the group with H marked as "UBO", meaning ultimate beneficial owner. H denied writing it and suggested his niece and another employee did. The judge said he could not make a finding about the handwriting, as there was no expert evidence. He was nonetheless satisfied that H probably wrote the words, or that they were written at his direction. He did not believe H's account, found it implausible that junior employees would call H the UBO of a trust without him saying so, and noted that H called neither employee to give evidence. He concluded the whiteboard accurately reflected that H is the UBO of the trust.
On the group's finances, the judge found there was material supporting H's case and did not think H had deliberately engineered the downfall of the companies. He attached no weight to a valuation prepared by H's brother, which was not expert evidence and had not been scrutinised. He took the view that any value in the group was likely to be limited, illiquid and speculative.
What this means for people in divorce financial disputes
In this case, the judge reached his findings on the whiteboard by weighing the evidence as a whole, and noted the absence of witnesses H could have called. He also treated the brother's valuation as carrying no weight because it was not expert evidence. The judge recorded that both sides' costs were substantial, reflecting the detailed inquiry into H's financial affairs.
Sources
- M K v S K [2026] EWFC 28, Family Court, Peel J, 11 February 2026