Chattels: What to do with them, and when. Written by Marianna Lo Conte and Luka Maxted-Page

31^st March 2025

Chattels: What to do with them, and when.

The matter of FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B) has been written about widely since its judgment was recently published and has served as a useful reminder of the importance of chattels in financial remedies proceedings.

When there is a dispute about chattels, when and how should those issues be resolved?

Looking back to Baron J’s judgment in the case of K v K [2005] EWHC 1070 (Fam) is a helpful starting point. K v K involved parties whose assets were ultimately determined to be around £6m. One matter the Court needed to address was valuable chattels (see paragraphs 32 to 37).

There was a joint valuation undertaken of the parties’ valuable antiques which showed they were worth around £330,000.

The Judge was “surprised that no steps had been taken in this case to resolve this issue [of chattels] (or even narrow it) prior to the commencement of the trial.” and provided a reminder that “the division of chattels must be accomplished prior to trial (with a clear schedule denoting the destination of items).”. If there was no agreement then the parties should prepare a Scott Schedule with the items marked as being agreed or in dispute, and if in dispute the reasons why any particular item is sought.

In this case, the parties were tasked with making a list of their “favourite items” in descending order, the parties were then to make an alternate choice until their respective lists were exhausted. Any unclaimed items were to be sold and the proceeds divided. There would be an off-setting or equalising payment to ensure that (in this case) the parties received a 50% share in terms of value.

The Court was asked to, and did, determine who should retain one item of jewellery and an 8-carat diamond.

The husband raised a dispute about the way in which the jewellery was valued and asserted that the valuation was too low and some items were missing. While a joint valuation had been directed, this was carried out to the exclusion of a representative from the husband’s advisers which he perceived as unfair.  Baron J went on at paragraph 38 to consider the instruction of and communication with joint experts more generally and stated that ‘the general practice in the Family Division should be that only joint approaches [to the expert] are acceptable and if there is non co-operation from one side, then this cannot be circumvented by unilateral action but should be dealt with by an application […] in matrimonial cases, where emotions often run high, it is prudent to act co-operatively and, therefore, jointly.’

The case of FI v DO involved the financial remedy of a 12 year long marriage, two children out of the marriage with relatively modest assets in the matrimonial pot and the court also had to grapple with the hotly contested issue relating to the ownership of the family dog, a golden retriever.

Whilst District Judge Crisp clarified that a dog is a chattel, she found considerable support in the authority of RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 (Fam), enabling her to approach the issue relating to ownership of the dog with compassion. Judge Crisp states at paragraph 71: “The legal authority to which I have referred provides assistance as to who has principally looked after the dog. Not who has purchased the dog, that fact in my view is not as important as who the dog sees as her carer. This is not who had previously looked after the dog, but who does now”

The Judge makes clear in her judgment that it matters not who paid for the dog. The Judge approaches the issue with sensitivity stating: “The dog’s home is with the wife and she should stay there. It would be upsetting for both the dog and the children were those arrangements to alter.”

Judge Crisp also provides in her judgment that “[…] I have no doubt that if this feature [ownership of the dog] could have been agreed other matters may have been able to be agreed.”

This serves us all as a reminder that parties should wherever possible endeavour to resolve their differences in relation to chattels (including dog ownership) outside of court and before any final hearing as this may result in dealing with matters in a more proportionate and cost effective way. 

Indeed, Judge Crisp increased the wife’s share taking into account the unnecessary costs incurred as a result of the husband’s pursuit of issues such as that of the ownership of the dog.

The following points should be borne in mind when dealing with chattels in financial remedy cases:

• The importance of resolving or at least narrowing the issues in respect of chattels in advance of FDR or any final hearing as sometimes chattels unfortunately become pawns in the power dynamics. If the issue of one or more chattels appears to be particularly contentious, could resolving that point result in the parties being able to move forward and agree other matters?

• Chattels need to be dealt with in a way which is proportionate to their value and importance.

• Consider how the parties may be able to decide who retains each item if there is no agreement. Perhaps one party could draw up two columns of chattels but the other party has first choice as to which column they choose. Alternatively, one could adopt the approach in K v K of listing items in order of preference and each party taking turns to choose an item.

• If there are outstanding issues it is advisable to explore resolving the dispute through mediation or arbitration (possibly even on paper), ideally before any final order is made.

• If the instruction of an expert in respect of one or more chattels is necessary, the parties will need to carefully consider how that valuation is to be carried out, by whom, the cost and timescales, and the relevant questions to be asked of that expert on a case by case basis.

• Preparing a Scott Schedule of remaining issues in relation to chattels before any final hearing is important to provide clarity to the judge as to what the parties’ positions are, to enable any court involvement at final hearing if necessary or proportionate.

• Clients may need to be reminded that, depending upon the chattels, the court may take a broad brush approach if they are asked to deal with the division at any final hearing.

• Be warned – a court at final hearing may decline to deal with the issue of chattels, depending on proportionality and time constraints, or;

• Ultimately, a court may simply order them all to be sold at auction leaving the parties to bid them.

March 2025

Marianna Lo Conte (2012)

Luka Maxted-Page (2015)