Inheritance and Finality: Lessons from X v Y [2025] EWHC 727 (Fam)

In the recent High Court decision of X v Y [2025] EWHC 727 (Fam), the court examined whether a financial remedy order could be revisited due to a significant change in circumstances occurring after judgment but before the order was sealed.
Background
Following a three-day final hearing in December 2023, HHJ Spinks delivered a reserved judgment awarding the husband 62.5% of the net proceeds from the former matrimonial home, citing his lower earning capacity and housing needs. However, three weeks post-judgment, the husband's father passed away, leaving him an estimated £1 million interest held in trust. The wife sought to reopen the judgment, arguing that this inheritance substantially altered the husband's financial position and that fairness required a more equitable division.
Legal Framework
The wife's application was considered under the principles established in In the matter of L and B [2013] UKSC 8 and AIC Ltd v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria [2022] UKSC 16. These cases affirm that while courts have discretion to alter a judgment before the final order is perfected, the principle of finality is paramount, especially in financial remedy cases. Any application to revisit a judgment must meet a high threshold, demonstrating that the new evidence would have had a significant impact on the original decision and that it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the time.
Court's Decision
Mr Justice Trowell dismissed the wife's appeal, upholding the original decision. The court found that:
- The inheritance was uncertain, tied up in a trust, and not immediately accessible.
- The judge had already considered the likelihood of future family support.
- Reopening the case would result in significant delay, cost, and stress.
- The husband's trust interest, while valuable, did not clearly eliminate his current financial need.
The court emphasized the importance of finality in financial remedy cases and the need for parties to bring forward all relevant information during the initial proceedings.
Implications
This case underscores the challenges of reopening financial remedy orders based on post-judgment events. Even significant changes, such as a substantial inheritance, may not be sufficient if the new information does not fundamentally alter the financial landscape considered during the original judgment. Practitioners should advise clients on the importance of thorough disclosure during proceedings and the limited scope for revisiting orders once judgments are delivered.
For family law advice and, or family court representation contact Stephanie Heijdra Family Barrister via
sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk or 02071014682









