Back to news

Think Twice Before Moving Assets in Divorce – The Risks of Dissipation

Attempting to hide or move assets during divorce proceedings can backfire. The recent decision in MNV v CNV [2025] EWFC 176 (B) provides a clear illustration of the family court’s approach to financial disputes in divorce proceedings, particularly where one party attempts to dissipate assets prior to the division of matrimonial property.

Case Summary

The parties, both Light Goods Vehicle (LGV) drivers, married in 2014 after a long period of cohabitation. They have one child, now aged 16. At the time of separation in late 2022, the parties jointly owned their former matrimonial home (“FMH”), a three-bedroom terraced property with approximately £138,814 equity.

The husband had a gross income of around £49,000 per annum, with the wife earning approximately £34,000, increasing to £48,000 post-separation through overtime. Both parties had modest savings and owned vehicles, including a van and motorbike in the husband’s possession.

Key Events

Shortly after the joint divorce application was filed in October 2022, the husband transferred £17,000 to his brother, claiming this was a gift intended to assist his mother. However, the funds were returned to the husband nearly a year later, after he had relocated abroad and sold the van for £27,000.

This transaction, along with the sale of the van and transfer of other assets out of the jurisdiction, formed the basis of the wife’s claim that the husband had engaged in asset dissipation, effectively diminishing the pool of available monies for division between the parties.

Court’s Findings:

The court found the husband’s conduct to be reckless and disproportionate in the context of the parties’ financial circumstances. While it was acknowledged that his intentions were partly motivated by concern for his mother, the court determined this was undertaken with a disregard for the financial welfare of the wife and child.

Although the court chose not to formally “add back” the dissipated sum of £47,000 to the husband’s financial resources, so as not to eliminate the award for his housing needs, the amount was considered when assessing the overall division of assets.

Final Order:

Ultimately, the court ordered that:

  • The wife should retain the family home and use her mortgage capacity to pay a lump sum of £6,500 to the husband;
  • The husband should transfer his interest in the property to the wife within 28 days;
  • A clean break financial order be made, preventing future financial claims between the parties.

The asset division reflected the court’s view of the parties’ respective needs, awarding the husband approximately 32% of the net assets (including the notional add-back), with the wife receiving the remaining 68%.

Key Takeaways:

This case underscores several important principles for separating couples:

  • Asset dissipation is taken seriously and may affect how resources are ultimately divided. Attempts to move or conceal assets can be deemed reckless or disproportionate.
  • The court’s primary focus remains on meeting the parties’ needs, particularly those of any children, rather than strict equality.
  • Even where assets have been dissipated, courts may cautiously “add back” these amounts when evaluating fairness and financial positions.
  • Conduct during the financial disclosure process can influence outcomes and should be managed with transparency and honesty.

Conclusion

MNV v CNV demonstrates the court’s balanced approach to resolving financial disputes post-separation. Parties should seek legal advice early to ensure compliance with disclosure obligations and to safeguard their financial interests. Attempting to undermine the process by dissipating assets can jeopardise the outcome and attract judicial criticism.

For tailored advice regarding financial settlements on divorce or separation, please contact Beth Hancocks by phone on 01743 248148 or by email beth.hancocks@pcblaw.co.uk.