Family Court finds husband has undisclosed wealth in Part III financial remedy claim

In a judgment of 16 February 2026, the Family Court decided a wife's Part III financial remedy claim, concluding that the husband has access to undisclosed wealth, and affecting spouses in similar proceedings.

In Fisayo Olaoluwa Awolowo v Olusegun Samuel Awolowo [2026] EWFC 31, the Family Court (Mr Justice Peel, at the Royal Courts of Justice) gave judgment on 16 February 2026 after a final hearing on 11 and 12 February 2026. The judgment was delivered in private and published on condition that the children's anonymity is strictly preserved.

Background

The wife brought her claim under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, with leave granted on 17 October 2018. The judge said the long delay was caused by the husband's determination to thwart her claims at every turn.

The husband had asserted that the equity in the former matrimonial home in Hendon was almost wiped out by a £1.6m debt to his brother's company. A Nigerian court gave judgment for that sum in 2019, the order was registered in England, and a charging order was made against the home. The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier finding that the loan was genuine and ordered a rehearing ([2025] EWCA Civ 641).

On 17 December 2025 the judge found that no part of the £1.6m was owed. He set aside the registration of the Nigerian order and the charging order, and made indemnity costs orders against the husband and his brother's company. The home, thought to be worth about £2m, was therefore free of that charge, apart from a relatively small sum for unpaid school fees. It was the only visible asset available for distribution.

The question

The court had to dispose of the wife's substantive Part III claims, including how to treat the husband's resources where the wife alleged he had not fully disclosed his true wealth.

The reasoning on disclosure

The judge heard oral evidence from both parties. He found the wife patently honest. He described the husband as unhelpful and belligerent, and said he tried to hide behind the corporate identity of his companies to distance himself from assets.

He referred to Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA Civ 1482. Where a party fails to disclose, the court may draw adverse inferences that are properly drawn and reasonable, but should not engage in pure speculation. It is not required to fix a figure or bracket for undisclosed resources, and it must be astute to ensure the non-discloser does not obtain a better outcome than if they had complied with their disclosure obligations.

The judge could not be satisfied as to the extent of the husband's assets, but concluded that, contrary to his presentation, he has access to undisclosed wealth. He noted that the husband had substantial assets in 2007, including a number of properties, and had deposed to about £6m of assets for a visa application. The husband offered no explanation of what happened to those assets. He did not produce a full run of personal bank statements, credit card statements, business accounts or other financial information. The most recent accounts for his Nigerian company were from 2018, when it held tangible assets, mainly property, of about £4.5m at the exchange rates then prevailing.

Sources

• Fisayo Olaoluwa Awolowo v Olusegun Samuel Awolowo [2026] EWFC 31, Family Court, 16 February 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/31