Judgment: The husband and wife were the children of extremely wealthy Indian families. Following the breakdown of the marriage the husband had discovered that he was not the biological father of their child and issued proceedings for the tort of deceit against the mother. Cohen J noted that he knew of no other case where the breakdown of a marriage had engendered litigation on the scale witnessed in this case. In this hearing he had to deal with issues including the assessment of the assets, in terms of value, origin and ownership and whether they were subject to a family arrangement or clawback, minority discounts, the movement of resources, tax, pre-acquired wealth, and other assets for which there was inadequate information. In Cohen J's judgment the wife's conduct was so egregious that it would be inequitable to disregard it, but to reflect emotional damage in financial terms would be like comparing apples and pears. Cohen J had also found that the husband's disclosure had been seriously deficient: to reduce the wife's award by giving her a lower percentage of the disclosed assets would be to inflict a double jeopardy. Cohen's J's conclusion was that the matrimonial assets to which the husband could have immediate recourse in terms of ownership were £117m. The wife's assets were calculated at less than £1m. The matrimonial home would be transferred free of charge to the wife. The wife's needs, including the value of the matrimonial home, were found to total £41,046,388.