Conduct in financial remedy cases: What meets the threshold?

As family lawyers, we are often asked by clients whether their ex-partner’s conduct will have any sort of impact during financial remedy proceedings. As per s.25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) 1973, the bar is set incredibly high when it comes to conduct having any sort of impact and therefore it is rare that conduct will normally be taken in account by a Judge.

However, the recent case of Loh v Loh-Gronager [2025] EWFC 483 highlights how conduct during a marriage and court proceedings can sometimes be considered by a Judge when making their decision.

In 2019 Mr Loh-Gronager, formerly a banker at Goldman Sachs, married a wealthy businesswoman, Wei-Lyn Loh, with the couple eventually separating in 2023. As part of a pre-nuptial agreement, Mr Loh-Gronager was due to receive a substantial lump sum of roughly £6.4 million which, according to the terms of the agreement, was set to increase for every year of marriage. Ultimately, Mr Justice Cusworth, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice, decided to reduce the sum due to Mr Loh-Gronager by over £4 million due to his conduct. Mr Loh-Gronager was left with a reduced lump-sum of around £2.3 million.

Although Mr Loh-Gronager was conducting an affair, this alone would not ordinarily meet the high threshold required for conduct to be taken into account. The tipping point however was due to Mr Loh-Gronager using funds from a joint account, without his wife’s consent, to conduct his affair and fund investments and other endeavours in his name.

Further to this, Mr Loh-Gronager was found to have doctored at least three emails claiming that his wife had consented to the withdrawal of funds from the joint account throughout the course of the marriage. In addition to his list of misdemeanours, Mr Loh-Gronager had also created an Instagram page on which he posted personal photographs of his wife as well as hiring a private investigator who was instructed to pose as a journalist. The journalist would loiter outside Ms Loh’s home, take photographs and effectively harass her during the divorce proceedings.

Mr Loh-Gronager’s conduct led Mr Justice Cusworth to make the decision to reduce the amount due to him under the pre-nuptial agreement by over £4 million. Mr Justice Cusworth stated that the sums taken from the joint account, without the wife’s consent, were treated as being a part of his pre-nuptial entitlement and so it would be unfair for him to be paid the full lump-sum following the divorce proceedings. Due to the doctoring of evidence and the manner in which Mr Loh-Gronager had conducted the litigation, Mr Justice Cusworth also decided to take this into account when reducing the sum due to him under the pre-nuptial agreement.

It still remains incredibly difficult to meet the high threshold for the court to take conduct into account in financial remedy cases. However, Loh v Loh-Gronager shows that while it is difficult to meet, it is not impossible where conduct is sufficiently deplorable that it would be inequitable for a Judge to disregard it.

If you have an enquiry regarding any of the issues raised in this blog, please call our Family Law team today on 0113 207 000.