England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
AT NOTTINGHAM

		The Family Court Carrington Street Nottingham
		11th March 2016

JUDGE ROGERS:

1. This decision arises in the context of the final hearing of the financial remedy proceedings involving Mr. and Mrs. Taylor. I should first express my thanks to Counsel, Miss Sally Harrison QC and Mr. Stephen Murray who represented the wife and Mr. Ian Cook who represented the husband. In addition, I am grateful to the firms of solicitors involved for their very helpful and clear preparation of the case. Above all I should thank the parties for their conduct in the course of this litigation, their demeanour in Court and their co-operative manner.
2. The background of the case can be stated very simply. Mrs. Taylor was born on the 21st July 1962 and so is 53. Mr. Taylor was born on the 13th August 1960 and so is 55. They met when they were very young and began to co-habit in 1982 in their very early twenties. They were married in 1988 and the marriage has produced four adult children, Lisa, Christopher, Kelly and Natalie. The parties' marriage continued for a very substantial period of time, although unfortunately it ran into difficulties, causing separation in 2011. They attempted reconciliation but unfortunately that too was unsuccessful, and their final separation occurred in the early part of 2014. Divorce proceedings and financial proceedings followed, culminating in the two day hearing before me last month at the end of which I reserved judgment.
3. The current circumstances of the parties are not substantially in dispute and there is a helpful agreed case summary and schedule of issues in the documentation.
4. The chronological history I have given. The current position, post separation, is that the wife, who does not work and has never worked in the marriage, remains in the former matrimonial home. She divides her time between that property and their holiday home in Tenerife and largely devotes herself to her wider family, her children and now grandchildren. She has throughout the marriage been a homemaker, has no realistic earning capacity and it is not suggested that she does not or realistically could acquire one.
5. Mr. Taylor is the world famous and renowned professional darts player known as Phil The Power Taylor. He is within that field unparalleled in terms of his success and his world wide recognition. He has been a professional darts player for many years, although when he began it was from a very modest background as a factory worker and a manual worker around the home. He now has three sources of income. His direct earnings and winnings are channelled through "Phil the Power Taylor Limited". It is his own 100 per cent shareholding company and is his primary vehicle for his professional activities. He is an 8.2 per cent shareholder in the Professional Darts Corporation which is, as I understand it, an organisation in which all or the majority of professional darts players involve themselves and it represents a management structure by which they deal collectively with television and other promotional organisations. He has a third source of income, very small in fact, "Phil Taylor Promotions Limited", a company designed to sell merchandise and sports goods relating to his own persona. It is not an active trading company and shows no significant assets.
6. In the wife's skeleton argument, at paragraph 29, there is helpfully in tabular form a list of the earnings that Mr. Taylor has had over the past few years. It shows, although of course there is fluctuation, gross receipts from all sources including sponsorship, promotional events and competitions of about a million pounds per annum. He has never drawn, either with his wife or individually, the entirety of his earnings, many of which have been reinvested.
7. He continues to play on the United Kingdom and world darts tour. After many years of unparalleled success as the premier player and the world No. 1, he fell in the rankings somewhat and I believe is now ranked No. 4. That may well have coincided with some of the difficulties in his marriage. There was speculation that Phil The Power Taylor's prowess had diminished and he would never return to his former glory. He told me in evidence that he had begun this season rather better and has had a revival of form and the public record of his current position shows that he is performing, if not at the highest level as before, certainly with very much greater success than in recent years.
8. The capital position for the parties has been reduced into a number of schedules produced by the solicitors or counsel in this case and although there are one or two deviations as between the two, they are broadly the same. A number of properties form the first item in the capital schedule. Each party has their own dwelling. There is the property in Tenerife, the further holiday property of the husband's at Pheasant's View, and then a series of relatively small value investment properties principally in Stoke-on-Trent or Newcastle-under-Lyme.
9. The next substantial item in the schedule is Mr. Taylor's shares in PDC, as I will call it, which at the time of trial had recently been revalued, subject to an allowance for tax, in the sum of £575,000. (I use rounded figures throughout this judgment.) The shareholders funds in Phil The Power Taylor Limited at trial were valued, after tax, in the sum of £758,000. The value of Phil Taylor Promotions Limited, as I have said, is insignificant. The schedule also sets out the cash balances and liabilities of the parties. Some sums are of some substance but relatively insignificant in the overall scheme of things. The pension provision available is modest amounting in cash terms to £149,000. Those figures are shown in the schedules as if they were cash, namely as pound for pound equivalents which is perhaps not strictly speaking the correct way, but of course again are insignificant in overall terms.
10. As I say, there is no significant issue over the valuations themselves. Net figures have been taken and allowances have been made for prospective tax on the realisations. There was at the outset potentially an issue over the Capital Gains Tax on the theoretical liquidation of Phil The Power Taylor Limited, but that evaporated and I am quite satisfied and agree that the figure of 10 per cent is the correct one and there is no need for a more complicated formula or proviso.
11. A word or two is required on the rental properties. Although the capital figures in the schedule are agreed they are in fact a cause for serious concern. In the course of the evidence both of the parties, but principally the husband, explained the relatively unusual nature of these property holdings. They were acquired piecemeal by Mr. Taylor and are largely occupied by friends or members of the family. The arrangements are very informal. There are, I am told, few documents, and I saw hardly any and there are very few records. It is not even clear whether there are formal tenancy agreements for all of the properties. That is significant, of course, because it does not appear that there has been any protection for landlords built in by virtue of the provision of tenancies under the assured short hold arrangements which would allow for the recovery of possession quickly. In such circumstances, where tenanted such properties generally attract either the full open market value or something very near it, that has been done in this case without reference to the potential difficulties of tenure. Equally some of the premises, I am told, contain small businesses, and it may not have been realised that they may be therefore subject to the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 so far as it relates to business security of tenure. Given the friendly informal nature of arrangements there is probably goodwill involved, but the values of the properties are in my judgment not completely certain. I use the figures on the schedule as pro-rata they are correct but the issue of the ability to obtain possession and the question of long term security for the tenants remain unresolved. The rental yields are low, quite deliberately. They are given in the schedules. There was some evidence, although no strong documentary support, about the level of outgoings and items of repair which of course would diminish the true profit on the income returns. They are not quantified and therefore the position is uncertain and I am quite satisfied is lower than perhaps appears to be the case as set out by the husband.
12. In terms of the Tenerife property, again there is lack of clarity in terms of the running costs, the local charges and taxes. There is undoubtedly an outstanding liability. Exactly its extent and what the terms of repayment were speculated upon in the evidence but not resolved. It is thought, and this is the best guess, that there is about 5,000 Euros in liabilities outstanding. That, of course, can easily be paid but the exact administrative process needs to be understood. I was told at one point that there could even be the danger of repossession, although there was no more evidence given about it.
13. There are a number of other variables. The parties' costs, of course, have been quantified and have eventually been put into the schedule. The outstanding figures are in the region of £40,000 for the wife and £8,000 for the husband. The husband's liability to Mastercard has been included, although the point is made that that is a false figure in that regularly he pays off the entire balance on a monthly basis. There is also reference to liabilities to income tax. He pays it inevitably twice per annum. The hearing in February was not long after the first payment of 2016 but it is proper, if there is a liability, it is said for that to be factored in. There is, of course, some debate about that, as these things occur from time to time. The variables therefore in overall context, although not de minimis are not significant. Therefore, it would not be proportionate to devote a lot of time to precise and detailed analysis. Counsel did not do so and nor do I.
14. In the end, the schedules produced on both sides of the case show total resources at trial in excess of £3.4 million. The husband's schedule in fact shows £3.412 million, the wife's £3.451 million. Broadly the difference is accounted for by the treatment of the outstanding tax liability for the husband. Any schedule is, of course, merely a snapshot. It seems reasonable to me to include the husband's potential tax liability because it is genuine and has been incurred and will arise at the appropriate moment. As well as the current position, the husband's advisers have produced a retrospective schedule showing values at March 2015, a date conveniently taken because of the expert valuations. The husband contends that it is a better point for judging the combined wealth as it excludes post separation accrual in relation to PDC and Phil The Power Taylor Limited. That matter of principle I will have to return to but I simply record the figure on the schedule (without, as it happens, on that occasion any figure being included for tax liability, so in one sense it is not comparing like for like) in any event at £3.131 million.
15. The open positions of the parties are shown in Divider F of the bundle but the husband's position developed to some extent during the litigation and indeed during the hearing itself. In part there was strategic repositioning but in part there was reaction to up to date figures. I reject the criticism of the husband that he drip fed the offers. To his credit he increased his offer of the lump sum from time to time. Very broadly speaking the competing positions were these. The wife sought an equal division of the capital; a division of the pensions as to 65 per cent to her and 35 per cent to the husband and continuing periodical payments on a whole life basis in the sum of £6,000 per month. The ultimate position of the husband was that he would allocate the investment properties in their entirety to the wife; allocate the pensions in their entirety to the wife; pay an additional lump sum of £480,000, but on a clean break basis. By his counsel's calculation his assessment of the net effect of such an order would be that there would be 65 per cent of the assets in the hands of the wife and 35 per cent in his own hands, and that departure from equality was justified and accepted by the husband as required to meet her needs.
16. The issues for me as well as the overall division, which is of course the ultimate issue, are the internal issues of the allocation of the properties; the allocation of the pensions and the assessment of the correct date for valuation taking account of the post separation accrual arguments.
17. I turn to the oral evidence given and my impressions of the parties. Both impressed me for different reasons. Separation was not easy. They had attempted a reconciliation which unfortunately had failed. The husband has had relationship difficulties with two of his children, but there was no or little bitterness and each spoke generously of the other. The wife giving evidence was quite nervous and diffident but she was patently honest. Her life revolves around the family. She lives quietly, albeit comfortably, but without extravagance. She was questioned quite closely upon her budget. She did not have the detail at her fingertips and from time to time guessed at figures. She was not seeking to exaggerate or enhance her position but at times picked speculative and unrealistic figures. Her Form E budget at C22 was out of date and incomplete. Her current budget as set out in tabular form by Miss. Harrison in closing was of a figure of £58,000 per annum, but even that, it seems to me, involved a great deal of guesswork or at best assumption. The wife spoke frankly about her own domestic arrangements. She was aware of the investment properties but had not historically been involved. She has had no experience of that or of the market generally. She left that to Mr. Taylor or his contacts or the daughter, Lisa, who is de facto his personal assistant and day to day manager. Mrs. Taylor knows little or nothing of the rental market or of the responsibilities and duties of being a landlord. I accept her evidence on this without hesitation. That has, of course, an implication for the allocation of properties. I have no doubt that she would have to call on Lisa or pay a letting agent to manage the properties, collect the rents and deal with other administrative processes. It would not be a desirable or an attractive challenge for her, but a worry and potentially a millstone. Although she does not work she contributes substantially by her efforts in relation to the wider family. She is slightly removed geographically by living in Crewe as opposed to Stoke and has to travel and would have to travel to the properties on a day to day basis.
18. I also accept her evidence over Tenerife. She wants to retain the property but is again rather unclear as to the detail of running costs and local charges. There is no one else in her life at the present time and that again I accept. Her evidence was clear although often lacking in detail but was honestly given.
19. The husband was much more confident and assured. As a high profile celebrity he is more used to public speaking and being in the spotlight and so appeared relaxed. However, any court arena is stressful. He was charming and engaging. I asked myself, cynically, was he trying to charm me? I emphatically say that he was not. His public persona is larger than life with a swagger. In reality he is a thoughtful realistic man. Driving him has been his work ethic. He described starting out young with his wife with nothing and grafting. He obviously had a prodigious talent but he has always practised hard and has recently concentrated very much on matters of health and fitness. He spoke convincingly of the demands of the work he does, the relentless travel on the tour, the training, the tiredness and the draining effect of being away from home. He emphasised quite rightly that he is by far the oldest player on the tour. He needs to work harder and harder to compete with men thirty years or more his junior. He explained the psychological pressures and the need to remain motivated. He also told me about his playing form. He is and always will remain, as Miss. Harrison pointed out graphically in closing, "Phil The Power Taylor" and no one will take that away from him. He is the sixteen times world champion, but in recent times his form has dropped so that he is now ranked fourth. He told me, and I accept, that his form has picked up and it is, as I have already said, a matter of record that his recent results have been very much better, but he spoke, I find, realistically of the future. He has no plan to retire but his career is obviously time limited. I prefer his evidence to the propositions put forward by Miss. Harrison as to the future. There will come a time, either through a drop of form, or simply an exhaustion of motivation, when he will retire. He told me that he will do so when the moment arrives and will not simply subside into mediocrity. He discussed the analogy of Steve Davis the snooker player who continued to play long after he was a serious contender for titles, because Mr. Davis's love of snooker and his continuing interest in the tour motivated him. Mr. Taylor will not do that. He will make the break when the time comes. His future after darts is not certain. He said he is unlikely to join the media which follows the playing tour around. He plainly will have some post playing income but his direct earnings, sponsorships and endorsements will decline rapidly and dramatically. He would like to devote some time to charity. He has no new partner.
20. He also told me about the investment properties. He has no health insurance and no significant pension provision, so the investment properties were acquired, on advice, as a long term investment and some security for his future. He explained the informality of the arrangements by helping friends and family and not insisting on the market rents. Clearly he and Lisa are heavily involved. He was criticised in cross-examination as to his level of disclosure and as to the limited amount of financial support given to the wife post separation. He said he always paid the bills and did not keep the wife short. On this point alone his evidence was less convincing. He could and should have done more. The wife's recent life has not been as comfortable as previously, but, that point apart, his evidence was impressive and convincing, and in terms of his self-assessment of his career, his form and his future, I accept it.
21. The crucial factual findings therefore I make are as follows, briefly:

(1) The wife has no experience at all in relation to the rental properties. To allocate them to her would be burdensome, unfair and given the vagaries to which I have referred would leave her with all the risk of uncertainty.

(2) The husband's career is not yet over but his period at the very top level is finite. I reject with no hesitation the proposition that he can simply go on playing almost indefinitely. I would not regard it as reasonable to expect him to do so. In my judgment the probable lifespan of his top level career is two to four years. That is my bracket but it is the obvious inference from the evidence he gave which I accept. At the outer limit of that bracket he will be nearly sixty.

(3) The standard of living. The parties' joint evidence, which was not in any way substantially in doubt, shows that they lived to a high level but not a vulgar or extravagant lifestyle. The wife's legal team produced a schedule of the husband's spending. Many items related to fitness or health matters, no doubt designed to prolong his career. It is true there were luxury purchases but this couple have always had regard to the value of money. That is something which is completely to their credit. In my judgment for the future they are entitled to comfortable living in that context.

(4) The wife's budget is an issue which follows of course from item 3. I have already referred to the wife's honesty. However, I must frankly doubt some of the figures because of their vagueness or uncertainty. At C22 in the bundle the Form E schedule is given and items for gas and electricity, general household repairs, the car loan, petrol, and legal fees stand out as untenable. There are other figures too. The bottom line of £42,000 is therefore no more than a vague estimate. It inflates figures but also unhelpfully excludes obvious items. But equally I am not satisfied that the updated schedule helps much more. The oral testimony on which much of it was based was of limited help because there was so much guesswork. The wife's open position was £6,000 per month. That figure is completely unexplained. The new schedule is reduced to £58,000+ per annum but is still approximate and contains a number of unsubstantiated or rounded figures or figures that are purely aspirational. Budgets in this class of case always cause difficulty. The time and the expense required to produce a precise and completely accurate figure would be disproportionate. Miss Harrison says it is not an exact science and the court is entitled to have regard to some comparative analysis. She notes that the husband spends rather more. That can be of limited assistance, although the wife's need as an independent autonomous person is not obviously linked to the husband's expenditure, save as to a general indicator of lifestyle or standard of living. Mr. Cook argues for a radical reduction. Even on the new schedule he attacks the electricity and gas, the general household repairs, the petrol, the holidays, the weekend expenditure and the cosmetics. Miss Harrison in response says that that is disingenuous and mean minded. I do not accept that. If figures are wrong or unsupportable we should say so, but Miss. Harrison's better point is that the items on the page are not the last word and the Court should step back and assess a true figure for a reasonable budget based on need, bearing in mind the standard of living and the available resources. Because of the vagaries of the figures an exact calculation is impossible but my task is to take a view of all that I have heard and I do so and I assess a proper figure, in my judgment, at the current time to be £50,000 per annum.

22. I turn to the law. Happily this case does not raise any novel or particularly difficult aspect of law. It requires a careful application of the statute in line with the authorities and directions of the appellate courts. In closing, Mr. Cook in a very concise and well structured argument took me through a series of numbered propositions of law, some quite rightly going back to first principles. He will forgive me if I do not rehearse all of them. My objective in this as in any case is to achieve non-discriminatory fairness. This case engages questions of sharing and need as explained in the seminal authorities particularly Miller -v- Miller, McFarlane -v- McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24. I was provided with that authority and referred to a number of passages in the speeches of their Lordships. It is unnecessary to recite them or read them into the judgment as they are so well known.
23. Compensation was touched upon but this is not one of those rare cases where compensation requires individual consideration. The wife's position is a familiar one to the extent, as Miss Harrison submits, that compensation is in play, it is co-incident with the proper assessment of the wife's current needs and the ensuring of a secure base for the future. Whether to impose a clean break or make an order for periodical payments is central. Section 25(A) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is very familiar. It was referred to expressly. I have not thought it necessary to recite it in the judgment but I re-read it. Again I was referred to the speeches in Miller and to the judgment of Lord Justice Thorpe in Hvorotovsky [2009] 2FLR 1754. Miss. Harrison emphasises the importance of the appellate decisions. In a submission perhaps given with some frustration she suggests that over-reliance upon the first instance decisions can lead to uncertainty because, she submits, there is almost a decision to support any proposition somewhere in the law reports.
24. I was referred, and I accept of course it is a decision of first instance, to that of Mr. Justice Mostyn in SS -v- NS [2014] EWHC 4183. It is indeed a decision that is cited with very great regularity and is well known because it contains the list of his Lordship's distilled principles on this area particularly. In my view Section 25(A) and the authorities simply show that a clean break is, to use the words of Lord Justice Thorpe, to be encouraged whenever possible. That is a factual decision, but as Mr. Justice Mostyn highlights a key factor, using the words of the statute, is whether adjustment is possible without undue hardship. That is a key dispute in this case. Mr. Cook says that an appropriate, he concedes, unequal division of capital will meet all of the wife's current and future needs and will allow her to adjust. Miss Harrison says this case calls for periodical payments because without it the wife would want for security. She submits that such additional capital sum as would be required to capitalise periodical payments is out of reach of the available assets and would be unattractive for the husband in any event. She says that Mr. Cook's calculations are based on false premises and significantly understate the wife's needs and would require her to tie up all of her assets, whether real property or capital monies, into income generation and in terms of the capital monies would diminish over time to nothing due to amortisation.
25. On the issue of post separation accrual, I was referred to a number of authorities: B -v- B [2013] EWHC 1232 a decision of Mr. Justice Coleridge, Evans -v- Evans [2013] EWHC 506 a decision of Mr. Justice Moylan and Jones -v- Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, a decision of the Court of Appeal. Here, the husband says separation has occurred. Mr Cook says that after separation Mr. Taylor continued to play and to earn through his own labours and so March 2015 is a good point to take, even arguably a generous one to the wife because the values of PDC and Phil The Power Taylor Limited are available at that date and so he submits that subsequent capital growth is to be ignored. The wife says that the date of trial should not lightly be departed from and that there is no exception to be drawn in this case from that general proposition and in any event that such elements of post separation accrual carry little weight.
26. An illuminating passage is to be found in the judgment of Mr. Justice Moylan in Evans. In a long passage dealing with what he calls post separation endeavour he says this, having set out the facts of his individual case, at paragraph 139 onwards,

"In Miller -v- McFarlane the sharing principle was based on the proposition at the end of a marriage the spouses as equal partners should be 'entitled to an equal share of the assets of the partnership unless there is a good reason to the contrary' per Lord Nicholls. The assets are described as 'financial fruits of the marriage partnership' or 'financial product of parties' common endeavour'. Baroness Hale refers to the partnership assets as being those 'built up by the joint efforts during the marriage' and 'the product of their joint endeavours'. In Charman-v- Charman (No. 4) matrimonial property is defined as 'the property of the parties generated during the marriage otherwise than by external donation'. The Confluence (that is the company involved in Mr. Justice Moylan's case) shares have been generated during the marriage. However, their economic value cannot be realised until some years after the end of the marriage. Insofar as their realised value reflects as it inevitable will what has occurred since the end of the marriage that value will in part be the product of the husband's endeavours, not the parties' joint endeavours. It matters not, in my view, whether that value is greater or lower than or even the same as the value as at the end of the marriage. It will still in part not be 'financial product of the parties' common endeavour generated during the marriage'. Accordingly the value realised from the shares will in part not be marital property.

142. This fact alone does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that the wealth including the realised value of the shares should not be divided equally between the parties. The sharing principle applies to all the parties' property, Charman -v- Charman (No. 4). However, as was said in Charman again 'to the extent that their property is non-matrimonial there is likely to be better reason for departure from equality'. I have also been referred to Jones -v- Jones and N v F.

143. The facts of the present case do not permit me to follow the approach adopted in these latter cases. However, the fact that I cannot identify specifically what part of the wealth is not marital does not in my judgment mean that I must divide the wealth equally. I must still decide as part of the discretionary exercise what weight to give to the husband's endeavours after the end of the marriage and the fact that as a result the value realised from the Confluence shares would in part reflect these endeavours and not the parties' joint endeavours".

He then goes on to discuss Jones -v- Jones and concludes:

"145. In my judgment the present case is different and some departure from an equal division is justified because of this factor as part of the discretionary exercise. The company is not static. As referred to above, I am satisfied that maintaining and developing the company in procuring its sale continues to require a great deal of important work. I am accordingly satisfied that that the value in due course realised on the sale of Confluence will reflect, in part, the husband's post separation endeavours".

27. I quoted from Mr. Justice Moylan's judgment at length, albeit on the facts of that case, to demonstrate how each case will depend upon the specific factual analysis and how a range of outcomes is possible.
28. I turn then to the key decisions that I have to make in this case. It is, as is agreed, a long marriage. The equal contributions of the parties, albeit of a different nature, are clear. The wife needs security. She has no realistic opportunity to improve upon her position. The husband's future is much better but his playing career is time limited. Post that playing career he will have some unquantifiable capacity to earn further. In my judgment the starting point is obviously that each is entitled to an equal share.
29. What date of valuation should I take? The coloured schedules produced in closing on behalf of the husband by Mr. Cook, show two different examples and on two different bases. Mr. Cook makes powerful points that March 2015 is itself post the actual date of separation and that the playing income earned by Mr. Taylor has been generated entirely by his own individual effort. Those in isolation are unanswerable points. Does it therefore follow that I must take March 2015 as the appropriate date for valuation? I am not satisfied that I should. The growth of about £310,000 combined in the value in of PDC and Phil The Power Taylor Limited represents both income earned by Mr. Taylor in his playing but also an increase in value of his stake in PDC which is not directly linked to his own success but is more correctly linked to the whole group of darts professionals, and as it happens the PDC increase is the greater of the two figures. Even the increase of earnings, pure and simple, is not to be viewed in a vacuum. His status and ability has grown over the course of the marriage and reflects to some extent the wife's contribution behind the scenes. In my judgment the fairest way as a matter of discretion is to take a notional midway point, not to be calculated exactly mathematically but a figure or a position that nevertheless reflects what I regard as counterbalancing arguments, the stronger being that of the husband, so that the normal starting point of the current wealth is justifiably departed from.
30. In terms of the internal distribution, I have already said that I completely accept the wife's case in relation to the investment properties. She does not have the skill or knowledge and there are uncertainties and the underlying costs are unclear. The fairest way is to share the responsibility and the risk. I therefore reject the husband's proposition that they should be transferred in their entirety to her. The best solution is to share them between them. In my judgment the best outcome will be that the wife will have, in addition to the former matrimonial home and the property in Tenerife which are agreed, 7 Sofia Way, 118 Barthomley Road, and 2 Spinney Drive. The husband should retain the other investment properties.
31. In order to give the wife some modest pension provision and because the husband is better able to make future provision, in my judgment, the wife should have allocated to her all of the pensions, limited though they are in scope on a pension sharing order. I treat them for the purposes of the arithmetic as assets in the equation as set out in the schedules, albeit subject to the true position in law which I mentioned earlier.
32. On the blue schedule which proceeds on the basis of the husband's proposal as to the properties, the wife would have retained all of them and would have received in addition a lump sum of £480,000 which is his latest offer. That would be subject to the adjustment for the tax liabilities and at the date proposed, namely March 2015, a distribution recognising a 65 per cent share or thereabouts to the wife and 35 per cent to the husband. However, my finding of a broad mid point needs to be taken into account and an adjustment would show that at that point there would still be on Mr. Cook's analysis an adjustment as to 60 per cent to the wife and 40 per cent to the husband. Mr. Cook says that either his proposal or, no doubt subject to my finding, that point would nevertheless be an appropriate adjustment and allows the wife fully to meet her budgeting needs. He prays in aid Duxbury and the computer generated Capitalise examples. In fact, on my findings, the pink schedule with the wife's suggested distribution is the correct one. The very helpful table at the bottom of the schedule setting out the different percentage splits arising from various lump sums is of interest. As it happens, the figure of £480,000 for a lump sum produces approximately a 50 per cent / 50 per cent division looking at the middle of the bracket of the valuation as I have found is correct. That of course involves about £350,000 worth of property values not adjusted, as the husband has suggested, which is why the percentage share has dropped. In my judgment, clearly the wife needs security. She has a house and a holiday home already. She will derive some income from those investment properties I have mentioned, although subject to the outgoings and running costs. She will in the fullness of time be in a position to obtain vacant possession and sell if she chooses, although that does involve a great deal more uncertainty for the reasons already outlined. She will have modest pension provision and, upon retirement age being reached, a State Pension.
33. Her present budget will no doubt change over time as people get older their needs probably diminish and decisions about housing and outgoings have to be made. Retirement itself brings change. Thus although I assess the current need based figure at £50,000 per annum it is not automatically correct, in my judgment, simply to extrapolate that for some 36 years or whatever figure for life expectation is taken by way of example. Thus the Duxbury or Capitalise figures are a guide but no more.
34. Miss Harrison, in any event, questions the assumptions in the Capitalise calculation. She says three per cent as a yield is wrong. She says the level of rental income is factually wrong. They are powerful points. The Capitalise figure of £575,000 over a lifetime is thus on her case too small. She says it is wrong to tie up the capital and by way of crude example says that if the Court should contemplate capitalising periodical payments on a clean break basis, a very rough and ready calculation of say ten years at £50,000 would produce £500,000 which she says would be the absolute minimum. I simply do not accept that. It ignores the reality of the fluctuation of need requirements and particularly the finite playing career of Mr. Taylor.
35. Miss Harrison says, therefore, that the only sensible approach is to share the capital and to share it equally and to make a periodical payments order in either the sum she suggests or such sum as the Court should order with the contemplation that it will be subject to variation and perhaps even extinguished later on.
36. The husband's case is that the provision of capital already offered is sufficient and that no periodical payments are required. His Capitalise calculation makes a number of assumptions, the most important of course being the figure of £42,000 per annum which I have already indicated is too low. But as is rightly pointed out that is a figure for the entire lifetime at the same level of income generation. In my judgment, my task is to see if a clean break is possible. I am confident in my assessment of the husband's playing career and so the level of earnings as at present must be time limited. He could easily fund the periodical payments over the short term but thereafter there would have to be some reconsideration.
37. I want to avoid further litigation, but also to provide fairness between the parties; in the wife's case in terms of security for the future and for the husband certainty as to his position. I reject the husband's case that a lump sum of £480,000 will provide the wife with sufficient capital both in its own right and as an income generating fund to meet the wife's reasonable needs over time. I could direct that periodical payments be made but for the reasons given that is an unattractive proposition. Given the allocation of properties which gives the husband more capital than he was offering, given my assessment of his playing career and income opportunities and given the availability of the resources, particularly the cash in Phil The Power Taylor Limited, I am quite satisfied that I can deal with the matter fairly if I direct that a lump sum of £830,000 should be paid on a clean break basis. That represents in my calculation approximately 58 per cent of the total available property at current values which of course is not the correct indicator given my earlier proviso, but it is a guide. It would be about 63 per cent as at March 2015 or 60 per cent as a rough mid point. Those crude cross checks equate with fairness, in my judgment.
38. £830,000 is more than offered by the husband but not as much as it might immediately suggest. His proposal assumed the allocation of the investment properties to the wife. As a comparison of the blue and pink schedules shows my division of the properties benefits Mr. Taylor to the extent of just over £350,000.
39. I am quite satisfied that Mr. Taylor has available resources to pay the lump sum quite quickly. The funds in Phil The Power Taylor Ltd are easily extractable and he has liquid monies in the Bank, as well as other capital on which he can draw. At his high level of current earnings his cash flow will soon be restored. I do not regard this sum as too onerous an immediate payment and doubt Miss Harrison's proposition that it is unattractive. It is a heavy one off payment but represents what is required to achieve a clean break.
40. I have, of course, to satisfy myself that the lump sum, by whatever extent it exceeds the husband's offer, is nevertheless fair and sufficient to meet need and provide security for the future. I accept that Mrs Taylor will have to make some immediate calls on capital for outstanding costs, liabilities and one off expenditures, such as for the repaving of the drive which I regard as reasonable. The evidence was, as I have explained, not altogether clear but I assess immediate capital expenditure in the round figure of £50,000.
41. The Duxbury and Capitalise figures can only offer a guide. They are often criticised and the points made by Miss Harrison in reference to the particulars of this case have to be considered. Although the gross rents for the investment properties were given and Mr Cook included £8400 per annum in the Capitalise data, I have to be cautious. The suggestion by Mr. Taylor that running costs are exceptionally low is a dangerous assumption for the future. In my judgment, a better figure for profit is in the region of £5000 per annum. I accept that the value of money changes and that rents may increase, particularly if at any stage the full market rate is charged. However, maintenance and running costs will also increase. It is not probable, in my judgment, that substantially greater profits will be available.
42. The income yield is also problematic and Miss Harrison is right at the present time, but it is impossible to judge with accuracy the position over the lifetime of a long calculation and there may be fluctuations which given greater credibility to the figure chosen by Mr Cook. I can not realistically subject this to a reliable arithmetical analysis with so much uncertainty. I must, to the extent I can, take it into account.
43. On the basis that the wife uses about £50,000 immediately, she will have a capital sum of £780,000 in her hands together with the underlying value of the investment properties for realisation if she chooses to do so later. The available capital will be sufficient to meet her reasonable needs over time at the standard of living I have assessed. It will substantially diminish by amortisation but not entirely and I have sought to avoid the unfairness of providing only such a lump sum as would be sufficient to meet need but only if every last penny were so deployed.
44. By this means I have achieved the position where it is possible and fair to have a clean break and in my estimation it should have attractions for both parties. It avoids the necessity for further debate (and possibly litigation) about the level of support and, above all allows the parties the certainty of outcome which, experience shows, is helpful as they move forward independently.
45. Other details were agreed at trial. In terms of Tenerife, the outstanding liabilities on the property are uncertain; therefore I direct that the husband should indemnify the wife as to the first 5,000 Euros. Any further sum must be split equally. The costs of transfers of all the real property from husband to wife must be borne by him. Subject of course to any further argument, my view is that the normal rule as to costs should obtain and therefore I propose no order for costs.
46. I invite counsel to draw the order. They will, of course, have liberty to apply on issues of drafting or on any ancillary applications that there might be. I direct, since there is no one present in Court to hear this judgment, and it is an oral judgment rather than a hand down judgment, that the time for any appeal would not run until the receipt by the parties of the approved transcript.

__________

Postscript

After delivery of judgment, I was contacted by the wife's junior counsel who sought permission for the judgment to be published. No objection was taken by the husband's advisers, nor were any representations as to anonymity made. I considered removing the parties' names, but given the content of the judgment, the identity of the husband would have been immediately obvious to any reader which is unavoidable in a case of this sort. Accordingly, the judgment is not anonymous.