In OS v DT [2025] EWFC, the court considered whether bonuses and restricted stock units (“RSUs”) received by the husband after separation but before the final financial remedy hearing, should be treated as matrimonial property, subject to the sharing principle.

OS v DT [2025] EWFC: Case Overview

The parties married in May 2014 and separated in September 2023, shortly before their ninth wedding anniversary. They had three children, all under 10. Arrangements for the children were agreed in mediation in early 2024, with both parties sharing their care equally. Divorce proceedings were issued on 8 February 2024, the Conditional Order was made on 8 April 2025, and the Final Order was due to follow the resolution of the financial remedy proceedings.

Are Bonuses and RSUs Matrimonial Assets?

The husband (H) earned approximately £1.2 million annually working in the finance sector, although he was taking voluntary redundancy and did not intend to pursue further highly paid employment. His assets included a number of RSUs awarded during his employment. H accepted that Wells sharing—dividing assets in their existing form rather than converting them into cash—was appropriate for some RSUs due to their fluctuating value. He argued, however, that other RSUs and certain bonuses represented post-separation accrual and should not fall into the sharing exercise.

The wife (W) had previously worked in the same sector as H before pausing her career for childcare responsibilities. She left finance in 2017 and had not undertaken commercial work since 2021. She earned approximately £10,000 per year working part-time with children with special educational needs and hoped eventually to earn around £50,000 annually as a teacher.

His Honour Judge Edward Hess was required to determine three core issues:

1. Which assets should be excluded from the sharing principle on the basis that they were derived from post-separation endeavour.
2. Whether H should pay child periodical payments of £15,000 per child per year.
3. Whether H should meet all of the children’s school fees.

Key takeaways

1. Matrimonial assets and the sharing principle

His Honour Judge Hess found that the proceeds of sale from the family home were matrimonial property, as funds used to purchase the property had been intermingled with joint monies. He also held that the fact H stopped paying his salary into the joint account from November 2024 did not alter its character; the income remained matrimonial.

However, the bonuses received by H in June 2024 and January 2025, together with RSUs awarded in January 2025, were determined to be post‑separation accrual and therefore non‑matrimonial.

In reaching this conclusion, the judge considered earlier authorities where bonuses paid within roughly a year of separation were treated as matrimonial because pre‑ and post‑separation effort could not be easily disentangled. W argued that the rapid transition from separation to the final hearing meant the bonuses and RSUs should be treated as matrimonial. H, by contrast, contended that clearly identifiable sums earned after the relationship ended should be excluded. The court agreed with H.

2. Child Maintenance in Shared Care Arrangements

Judge Hess confirmed that the family court retains full jurisdiction to make child periodical payment orders even where parents share care equally. Because the Child Maintenance Service does not make assessments in 50/50 care arrangements, no statutory restriction applies.

Despite having jurisdiction, the judge declined to order child maintenance. He emphasised that:

• both parents were financially self‑sufficient,
• the children’s care was shared equally, and
• H was facing imminent redundancy.

Instead, the children’s needs were met more appropriately through a targeted school‑fees order.

This part of the judgment indicates the court’s reluctance to impose maintenance in high‑resource, equal‑care cases unless a genuine financial disparity exists.

3. School Fees and Financial Contributions

Judge Hess ordered H to pay 75% of the children’s school fees (£67,000 per year), with W contributing 25%. This reflected H’s stronger capital position, including non‑matrimonial assets, as well as his higher residual earning capacity.

What This Means for You

Financial remedy cases often turn on how income and assets are characterised at and after separation. This decision provides helpful guidance for anyone going through divorce where bonuses, share schemes or other variable remuneration are involved.

How bonuses and RSUs may be treated in your case

Bonuses and restricted stock units (RSUs) are not automatically treated as matrimonial assets. The court will look closely at when and how they were earned. Where a bonus or RSU can be clearly linked to work carried out after separation, it is more likely to be considered post‑separation accrual and excluded from the sharing exercise. However, where remuneration reflects efforts made during the marriage, or where pre‑ and post‑separation contributions are closely intertwined, it may still be treated as matrimonial.

Why the timing of separation matters

The timing of separation can be critical. A relatively short gap between separation and the final hearing does not, by itself, mean that all income received during that period will be shared. The court will consider whether the relationship had truly ended and whether income earned after that point represents a continuation of marital endeavour or a new phase of individual effort. Establishing a clear separation date, supported by evidence, can therefore be important when arguing that certain assets should be excluded.

How courts assess fairness

Ultimately, the family court retains wide discretion to achieve a fair outcome. Judges will consider factors such as each party’s earning capacity, childcare responsibilities, future needs and the source of assets. Even where some assets are classed as non‑matrimonial, they may still be taken into account when assessing overall fairness, particularly where resources are required to meet one party’s needs or the needs of any children.

Because these cases are highly fact‑specific, tailored advice is essential. Early guidance can help you understand how the court is likely to approach income, bonuses and employer share schemes in your particular circumstances.

Conclusion

OS v DT is a helpful illustration of the court’s flexible approach when determining whether post‑separation income and assets fall within the sharing principle. It also confirms that:

• the court can order child periodical payments in shared‑care cases, but such orders must be justified by the facts, and
• Wells sharing remains an important mechanism for dealing with fluctuating assets such as RSUs.

Overall, the decision reinforces the court’s broad discretion in achieving a fair outcome and underscores the distinction between matrimonial property and post‑separation accrual.

About the author

Estella Newbold-Brown is Partner and Head of Family, advising high-net-worth clients on complex financial settlements and children matters.

Estella is a highly regarded family law specialist, advising high-net-worth individuals on complex financial and children-related matters. She acts in cases involving significant wealth, family businesses, international assets, and offshore structures, and is known for her strategic, pragmatic, and empathetic approach. She is recognised for her meticulous organisation, clear communication and forward-thinking style, ensuring clients feel supported throughout every stage of their case.