“Reckless and wanton” spending: why add back claims in financial remedy proceedings are never a given

On paper, the idea of an add back in financial divorce settlements looks straightforward. If your ex-spouse has reduced the value of marital assets through excessive, irresponsible spending, the amount they spent can become an ‘add back’ to compensate you. However, as LGFL Director Anne Leiper explains, achieving an add back is rarely straightforward in reality.

 

The aim of any court financial divorce settlement is a fair distribution of marital (shared) assets that is “As fair as is possible in all the circumstances” (1) It also involves both parties giving “full and frank disclosure” (https://lgfamilylawyers.co.uk/importance-full-disclosure/) of all their assets.

We do come across cases of high and medium net worth individuals trying (at best) to squirrel away assets beyond their spouse’s reach or (at worse) not disclosing them and actively hiding them from sight.

This is quite different from your other half going on a spending spree, gambling, making gifts, spending money without good reason, or otherwise dissipating (spending) joint assets. These kinds of actions may be termed “reckless and wanton”.

As one judge remarked:
“A spouse cannot be allowed to fritter away the assets by extravagant living or reckless speculation and then to claim as great a share of what was left as he would have been entitled to if he had behaved reasonably”. (6)

 

Add backs are NOT cash

It’s important to remember that an add back is not money on the table. It is a way of accounting for how much more one party would have received if they hadn’t been reckless or wanton in their spending. The add back is allocated to the “big-spender” to boost their worth on paper, with the result that the amount allocated to them in a settlement is reduced. It assumes they have already had the benefit of the add back.

Add backs may seem a bit topsy-turvy, but the aim is always a fair settlement that takes into consideration any excessive spending habits of one partner. The problem is, it has always been tricky to distinguish what is “reckless and wanton”.

What constitutes reckless and wanton spending?

In a recent case at the Family Court in Birmingham, Deputy District Judge S Bradshaw took time to define exactly what criteria needed to be met for an add back to be considered:

“The expenditure must be either:
a. reckless, when assessed in the context of the party in question; or

b. have a wanton element, when measured in proportion to the matrimonial assets.

The expenditure must disadvantage the other spouse.

The ‘notional reattribution’ must be applied cautiously.

The ‘notional reattribution’ cannot be considered as cash available to meet the needs of the party against whom it is applied.” (4)

This will be assessed on a case by case basis. Meeting needs will still be a priority.

 

Camper vans and cash gifts

The sums involved in this case were modest: a family home worth just under £140k, assets of around £50k including a car and motorbike, and each spouse earning around £48 per annum as lorry drivers.

Initially, the couple agreed that the wife should keep the family home for herself and their son. However, shortly after filing for divorce in 2022, the husband transferred £17k to his brother as a gift to help his mother, but got that money back a year later. After the split, the husband returned to his homeland to look after his mother, driving there in the couple’s VW camper van. He subsequently sold the van for £27k.

The wife claimed these, and several other actions constituted “asset dissipation”, and wanted an add back of £47k. Whilst the judge ruled that the husband had been reckless and wanton in that he took almost 25% of the total matrimonial assets, if the £47k add back was allocated, the husband would not have been able to pay his debts or afford a £10k deposit on accommodation.

In the end, the husband was allocated 32% of the assets and the wife 68%. In addition, the wife was ordered to pay her husband a lump sum of £6.5k so he could afford the £10k deposit. (3)

Cocaine and corporate success

At the other end of the scale is a case where the husband and wife had £25million in assets (MAP v MFP [2015]). The husband had spent £250,000 on cocaine and prostitutes, and held back a substantial company dividend, amongst other financial actions. As a result, the wife argued that £1.5million should be added back into the agreement on the husband’s side.

However, the judge took a wider view of the relationship and decided that:
“It would be wrong to allow the wife to take advantage of the husband’s great abilities that enabled him to make such a success of the company while not taking the financial hit from his personality flaw that led to his cocaine addiction…

It may have been morally culpable. Overall, it was irresponsible. But I find that this was not deliberate or wanton dissipation … A spouse must take his or her partner as he or she finds them. Many very successful people are flawed. This is true of this husband.” (5)

Balanced financial agreements with LGFL

At LGFL, we specialise in complex financial settlements, especially where children are involved. Our empathetic and pragmatic approach ensures that the interests of all your children are always put first, a goal shared by family courts too.

Equally, our holistic approach and dogged determination to ensure every asset is accounted for have resulted in balanced financial settlements that both parties can sign up to, both inside and outside court.

To discuss your situation in complete confidence:

•  Call us
•  Email us
• Request your initial reduced fee consultation

About the author

Anne Leiper is Director and Co-Founder of LGFL Ltd. Anne deals with many of LGFL’s high net worth clients with complex financial matters, who value her determined and informed approach. Her aim is to always achieve the best financial settlement possible for any client.

• Legal 500 Recommended Lawyer
• Listed in Chambers and Partners
• Listed Leading Lawyer at Wiselaw
• Resolution Member and trained Mediator
• Fully accredited collaborative lawyer
• Accredited Family Lawyer by The Law Society

SOURCES:

(1) Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
White v. White [2000] UKHL 54; [2000] 3 WLR 1571
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2000/54.html

(2) MNV v CNV [2025] EWFC 176 (B)
19 June 2025
Abigail Clements-Bewley
Published: 25/06/2025 23:17
https://financialremediesjournal.com/content/mnv-v-cnv-2025-ewfc-176-
b.193f969436d04d6792fb28068e419e4a.htm

(3) Think Twice Before Moving Assets in Divorce – The Risks of Dissipation
https://www.pcbsolicitors.co.uk/news/divorce-asset-dissipation-mnv-v-cnv-
2025-ruling/

(4) MNV v CNV
Case No: 1708-3584-9401-7697
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 176 (B)
[https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/176#para\_53]

(5) MAP v MFP [2015] EWHC 627 (Fam)
Neutral Citation Number: 2015 EWHC 627 (fam)
Case No: FD13D02888
https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/map-v-mfp-2015-ewhc-627-fam/

(6) Martin v Martin
[1976] EWCA Civ J0614-2
https://vlex.co.uk/vid/martin-v-martin-792987045