WLL v WL M

[2] Counsel for the Husband submits that the Husband had made an offer to settle (“the OTS”) dated 29 August 2022, duly served on the Wife, pursuant to r 446 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (“FJR”). The OTS had no deadline for acceptance, and remained open for acceptance up to the time when the judgment was delivered on 3 April 2023. The Wife did not accept the OTS.

[10] The OTS was served on 29 August 2022. Since then, two exchanges of affidavits of assets and means were made before the matter came before me, and a further application for specific discovery was made by the Wife. These interlocutory proceedings resulted in an additional seven months before the ancillary matters were resolved (I delivered judgment on 3 April 2023). The judgment sum was also more favourable for the Husband than the terms of the offer, by $372,483.44. Ms Tee says that the Wife should not be penalised by this difference because it is attributable to the valuation of the matrimonial home, which was subject to price fluctuations of the property market. However, another significant contributing factor to the difference in judgment sum was my rejection of the Wife’s argument that an adverse inference should be drawn against the Husband, with a consequent 10% uplift given to the Wife’s share of the agreed matrimonial assets. This represented a difference of approximately $900,000 (as the total value of matrimonial assets was above $9 million).