Judge tells divorcee to pay her ex-husband half the £160,000 cost of his trans surgery in millionaire couple's court battle

Daily Mail​

a day ago

A judge has ordered a divorcee to pay half of her ex-husband's £160,000 trans surgery bill.
In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, the judge said the surgery was a 'need' and not a 'whim' - meaning it was 'reasonable' for the couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, to split the cost.
The wife, 60, claimed her husband's decision to transition led to the breakdown of the their marriage and therefore unfair for her to shell out £80,000 for the procedure.
During the hearing at Brighton Family Court, the husband, 58, argued 'it would be like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery and that accordingly the cost of that surgery should be met from joint funds'.
The pair first met in London in the late 1990s while working in the financial sector before marrying in 2002, when the husband was living as a man.
Twenty years later, in 2022, the husband revealed to his wife he was 'intending to 'transition to a woman' and 'commenced hormone therapy at that stage', the judge said.
The wife started divorce proceedings two months later, the Telegraph reports.
The couple had accumulated £3million in joint assets during their marriage and were described as having a 'very international lifestyle living in several countries in different continents and purchasing properties in various countries'.
They shared two children, who are now at university after they were privately educated.
The husband's surgery took place in 2024, after the couple had separated for two years, and was paid using their joint money.
The £160,00 cost was at the centre of the legal dispute, which is understood to have cost the couple almost £1 million in legal fees.
During the separation, the husband claimed he could not afford to pay the court-ordered maintenance to his wife and children.
However, the husband, who has retrained as a massage therapist and Reiki practitioner, spent £14,000 on an Amex card in one month 'mainly on clothing, nails, jewellery and restaurants' and got £13,000 worth of tattoos in six months
He argued his surgery should be 'treated in the way of any other medical costs which would ordinarily be met from the joint assets'.
In his ruling the judge said that the husband, who says his wife always knew he was tran, had provided medical evidence of gender dysphoria which had caused 'significant anxiety, depression and distress'.
The wife said in her evidence that 'she was not aware that the respondent wished to transition until the end of the marriage'.
She added it was 'devastating and a big surprise' and was 'deeply shocked' when her husband 'stated that she intended to live her new life as a lesbian woman'.
She argued that the surgery costs should be paid out of his personal asset, saying that it was unfair she had to stump up the money as the decision to transition 'caused the end of the marriage'.
The husband responded: 'You marry a trans person. You live with a trans person. You benefit from a trans person. They are suicidal and you support them.'
Judge Stuart Farquhar said that while 'this has been a hugely difficult and emotionally draining experience' for the trans woman, the husband had 'shown no understanding whatsoever that her decision to transition to a woman has had an impact on anyone else, and particularly' his ex-wife.
However, he said the court could 'not consider the reasons that a marriage broke down within financial remedy proceedings'.
He said he was satisfied the 'surgery was meeting a genuine and deep-felt medical/psychological need' and not 'carried out as a whim'.
The judge therefore ruled it was 'reasonable' for the money to be spent 'out of joint resources'.