In the case of OS v DT [2025] EWFC, the court had to determine whether bonuses and stocks received after a couple separated and before the final divorce hearing should form part of the matrimonial property and be subject to the ‘sharing principle’. In this article, paralegal Yasmin Ghadamian examines the decision, which also considered whether child periodical payments should be made where childcare arrangements were shared between the parties.

Background

The couple in this case were married for just short of nine years, having married in May 2014. They had three children, all under the age of 10. By September 2023, the marriage had broken down, and the couple had separated. Following separation, discussions about where the children would live were resolved in mediation in early 2024, with an agreement that the children’s time would be shared equally between the parties. Divorce proceedings were commenced on 8 February 2024. The Conditional Order was pronounced on 8 April 2025, and the Final Order terminating the marriage was due to be granted following the outcome of the financial remedy proceedings.

The husband (H) had a successful career in the finance sector, earning around £1.2m a year, but was taking voluntary redundancy and did not intend to undertake well remunerated work in the future. Among H’s sole assets were a number of restricted stocks units (“RSUs”), which had been awarded to him as a result of his work with his employer. In relation to some of the RSUs, H conceded that “Wells sharing” (the idea of sharing assets in their actual form rather than converting them into cash before division) was appropriate to alleviate the problem of fluctuating values. In relation to other RSUs, H argued that they constituted a post-separation accrual, which should not be shared with his wife (W).

W used to have a high income in the same field as H, but her career was paused following the birth of the children and subsequent childcare responsibilities. She left the finance sector in 2017 and had not been in any commercial-type work since 2021. She now earned around £10,000 a year working part-time educating children with special educational needs. She hoped to earn around £50,000 a year in the future, working as a teacher.

His Honour Judge Edward Hess considered three issues:

1. What assets should be excluded from the ‘sharing principle’ and treated as non-matrimonial property on the basis that they had been derived from post-separation endeavours? The sharing principle provides that assets generated during a marriage should be treated as matrimonial property and divided equally between the spouses unless there is a sound reason to do otherwise.
2. Whether H should pay child periodical payments at the rate of £15,000 per child per year.
3. Whether H should pay the entirety of the children’s school fees.

Overall takeaway

1. Matrimonial assets and the sharing principle

His Honour Judge Hess held that the proceeds of sale arising from the family home were matrimonial as monies used to buy the property had been mingled with joint funds. He also held that just because H stopped paying his monthly income into the joint account in November 2024, this did not change the status of the income, and it should still be classed as matrimonial.

However, His Honour Judge Hess held that H’s bonuses (which were received in June 2024 and January 2025) and RSUs (which were awarded in January 2025) were to be treated as post-separation accruals.

In reaching this decision, the judge considered earlier cases in which bonuses received within about a year of separation had been treated as matrimonial because it was difficult to separate pre- and post-separation efforts. The wife argued that, as there had been “rapid progress from separation to final hearing”, the bonuses and RSUs should form part of the matrimonial property. In contrast, the husband argued that identifiable monies received after the separation should be excluded from the sharing exercise.

      2. Child maintenance

His Honour Judge Hess held that the family court retains full jurisdiction to order child periodical payments even where parents share the children’s care equally, since the Child Maintenance Service does not assess liability in such cases and therefore no statutory bar applies.

However, despite having jurisdiction to do so, the judge declined to award any child periodical payments on the basis that both parents were financially self-sufficient, they enjoyed equal shared care arrangements and the husband faced imminent redundancy. Instead, the court met the children’s needs through a targeted school-fees order (see below).

This decision illustrates judicial reluctance to impose maintenance in high-resource, equal-care cases unless a genuine financial imbalance is shown.

3. School fees

His Honour Judge Hess ordered H to pay 75% of the children’s school fees (in the sum of £67,000 per year), with W paying 25%. This reflected the fact that H had greater capital, including his non-matrimonial resources, and retained a higher overall earning capacity.

Conclusion

This case is a useful example of how the court is prepared to use its discretion to achieve a fair outcome, in this case, in relation to whether income or assets received post-separation are to form part of the matrimonial assets.

It also clarifies that the court has jurisdiction to make child periodical payment orders where parents share care of children, but the facts of the case must justify them. In this case, they did not.

Finally, it reinforces the principle of Wells sharing fluctuating assets, such as the RSUs in this case.