A recent High Court ruling has demonstrated the critical need for transparency within financial remedy proceedings upon divorce.
Mr Mario Michael, a successful property developer in London with an interest in 200 properties, was ordered to pay his ex-wife a total of £15 million by way of multiple lump sum payments at a Final Hearing in May 2025, which includes paying 85% of her legal fees. The proceedings spanned over three years, having been commenced by Wife in 2022 following a 22-year marriage. At the start of proceedings, Mr Michael sent his Wife a text stating “pls remember. I’ve got nothing on my name. All in trust. Because I always knew this day was coming, because you told me so.”
It was found at the Final Hearing that Mr Michael had failed to disclose the full extent of his interest in property investment and development businesses and that a Trust which contained most of the family’s wealth had been set up by Mr Michael with a “deliberate intention” to hide assets from his Wife, thus leaving his Wife in a “homeless and in a financially parlous situation” following the conclusion of their marriage. HHJ Hess commented that Mr Michael was a “fundamentally dishonest man, quite prepared to be wholly and deliberately dishonest when it suits him to be.” Mr Michael has been subject to various cost orders, including one order to indemnify Wife for 85% of her costs following a hearing in August 2024.
At the Final Hearing, Wife’s legal team submitted that receivers (individuals appointed to protect property subject to a dispute) should be appointed to assist with the enforcement of orders made against Husband in December 2023 regarding money owed from Mr Michael to Wife by way of maintenance and legal fees and payment of £850,000 by way of contribution to Wife’s legal fees. HHJ Hess considered this infrequent order necessary due to Mr Michael’s “very obvious refusal to cooperate in any way” and his deliberate non-compliance of this order.
Mr Michael has made various applications to appeal this decision at the Court of Appeal. One application was dismissed by Lord Justice Moylan. We await the outcome of the others.
What does this mean for Financial Disclosure in divorce proceedings?
It is reassuring to read that the Court delved into the matter of a deceitful party to a marriage and a Trust that had the intended purpose of preventing Wife from having her fair share of what is deemed matrimonial. This case should act as a cautionary tale to those within divorce proceedings who perhaps may consider concealing assets for the purpose of financial remedy proceedings – it is clear that the Court’s do not hesitate to address and compensate for behaviour of this kind.