In the recent financial remedy judgment of LP v MP, Mr Justice Cusworth departed from the usual sharing principle after finding that the wife’s coercive and controlling behaviour towards the husband warranted a financial penalty.

Although the misconduct in this case was both unusual and extreme, the decision offers valuable insight into how conduct can affect the sharing principle in financial remedy proceedings.

The Decision in LP v MP

The wife’s behaviour included physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, falsely claiming she was about to become a High Court judge, and seeking substantial sums of money to support her supposed career progression.

While Mr Justice Cusworth acknowledged the guidance from Standish—that matrimonial property should ordinarily be shared equally unless a justified departure exists—he concluded that this was a case where equal division would be inappropriate.

Taking into account both the wife’s conduct and her lack of financial contribution, he reduced her sharing entitlement to half of 60% of the total matrimonial assets, observing:

“I am satisfied that a fair outcome for both parties is that 40% of the wife’s prima facie entitlement is deducted on account of her complete lack of contribution, the absence of which is rendered significantly more acute when considered through the glass of her deplorable conduct.”

Matrimonialisation of Property and Financial Contribution

Mr Justice Cusworth also treated as matrimonial a property the wife had owned before the marriage, on the basis that the husband had loaned her £135,000 to clear the mortgage.

Whether this should have resulted in the property being “matrimonialised” is debatable; the loan could arguably have been seen as creating a repayable interest rather than transforming the property’s character. Questions around matrimonialisation—and how conduct plays into that assessment—will no doubt continue to challenge the courts.

How Coercive and Controlling Behaviour Can Affect Divorce Financial Settlements

When assessing needs, Mr Justice Cusworth also held that the wife should not be maintained at the marital standard of living going forward. Notably, the economically stronger party in this case was the victim of the abuse. Typically, where abuse is an issue, the concern is ensuring adequate provision for the financially weaker, abused spouse. Here, however, the husband would have remained comfortable even if the wife’s claims were met in full. The decision to reduce her standard of living therefore signals a firmer approach to conduct, regardless of which party is at fault.

Conduct and coercive behaviour in other recent financial remedy cases

This judgment should be viewed alongside other recent authorities on conduct, including decisions of Mr Justice Peel—such as N v J [2024] EWFC 184—and the Court of Appeal decision in Goddard‑Watts v Goddard‑Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115, both of which Mr Justice Cusworth considered.

In Goddard‑Watts, Lady Justice Macur observed that misconduct under section 25(2)(g) typically needs to be quantifiable in financial terms rather than functioning as a punitive measure. She nonetheless accepted that conduct may be “the glass” through which the case is viewed, even if it does not directly increase the award.

Mr Justice Peel has consistently emphasised that conduct should only be taken into account where there is a demonstrable (even if not precisely measurable) negative financial consequence. In N v J, he cited cases illustrating this causative link, such as FRB v DCA (No 2), where the husband suffered financial loss by funding the upbringing of a child he wrongly believed to be his.

Two Emerging Approaches to Conduct

This position contrasts with that of Mr Justice Cusworth in LP v MP, where the focus was not on financial causation but on justified departure from the sharing principle and the statutory requirement that the conduct be such that it would be “inequitable to disregard”. While acknowledging the high threshold set by the higher courts, he expressed concern that this standard risks creating unfair outcomes for victims of violent, coercive, or controlling behaviour.

Recent case law therefore reveals at least two distinct approaches to conduct in financial remedy cases. As the law continues to evolve, conduct-based arguments will inevitably carry uncertainty and will be determined on their own facts.

Our family law solicitors advise clients across London, Bournemouth and Southampton, and have significant experience acting in high‑value and sensitive financial remedy proceedings. If you would like advice tailored to your circumstances, our Family team is here to help.

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.