LP v MP

  The husband additionally points me to sharply increased insurance premiums which he had to pay in relation to the family properties following the wife's convictions, although he must accept that he made those payments knowing of her convictions, and so there was not the same level of deception involved. His agreement to pay may have been a reflection of the degree of control which she was then exercising over him.

  So, having made those findings, what then are the assets in the case, and to what extent can they be classed as matrimonial? The husband had retired from his highly successful career in the City by the time the parties met in 2010. He describes how most of his wealth was generated in the five years from 2000-2005. He retired from full time employment in 2007, since when he has managed his own investments. I have been shown a schedule, the accuracy of which is not challenged, summarising the wealth he owned as the parties started cohabiting in May or June 2011, totalling �21.6m.

  How, then, should the sharing principle apply in this case? In FB v PS   [2015] EWHC 2797 (Fam) , Moor J had said this:

I was referred in particular to the well-known words of Lord Nicholls in Miller at Paragraph 22 of his speech as to the position of the matrimonial home where he says:-

" The parties' matrimonial home, even if this was brought into the marriage at the outset by one of the parties, usually has a central place in any marriage. So it should normally be treated as matrimonial property for this purpose. As already noted, in principle the entitlement of each party to a share of matrimonial property is the same however long or short the marriage may have been."