The 2023 High Court ruling in Dmitry Tsvetkov v Elsina Khayrova offers a significant clarification of how “conduct” should be treated in financial remedy proceedings under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA).
Delivered by Mr Justice Peel, the judgment reaffirms that only conduct with clear financial relevance should influence the outcome of asset division — setting a benchmark for how such claims should be raised and managed.
The case centred on a high-value divorce involving substantial assets, including a £22 million Surrey home and properties overseas.
During proceedings, Ms Khayrova was found to have concealed significant assets, including a luxury handbag collection worth approximately £1 million. Her dishonesty led to increased litigation costs, and she was ordered to pay half of her former husband’s £1.76 million legal fees.
The court used this case to explore when conduct — financial or otherwise — can justifiably affect a financial settlement.
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act requires courts to consider the conduct of each party, but only if it would be inequitable to disregard it.
Mr Justice Peel outlined a two-stage approach for conduct claims:
The applicant must present clear, detailed evidence of the conduct and its financial impact.
The court must assess whether allowing the claim is relevant, proportionate, and justified within the financial remedy framework.
The judgment discourages vague or emotive conduct claims that lack tangible monetary effect.
Citing Family Procedure Rules (FPR) 2010, the ruling emphasised that the court’s priority is to ensure cases are handled fairly, efficiently, and cost-effectively.
Judges now have greater discretion to filter out weak or irrelevant conduct allegations early in proceedings — avoiding unnecessary time and expense.
This includes the possibility of excluding conduct entirely at final hearings if it does not meet the strict threshold under Section 25.
The judgment introduces a disciplined, evidence-based approach to conduct arguments, promoting:
Clearer drafting of conduct claims
Avoidance of emotionally charged or unsubstantiated allegations
Greater efficiency and judicial consistency
It reinforces that not every act of poor behaviour during a marriage qualifies as “conduct” under the law — only those with a measurable financial consequence.
The case is a reminder that conduct must have real financial implications to affect divorce settlements. Emotional grievances, while valid personally, seldom carry legal weight.
Couples — and their advisers — should focus on the economic realities of the case rather than punitive arguments that risk escalating costs and judicial criticism.
If you’re involved in divorce or financial remedy proceedings and need advice on conduct, disclosure, or settlement strategy, please use the contact form on this page, email info@ansons.law or call 01543 263456 to speak with a member of our Family Law Team.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are for general information only and do not constitute legal advice. The law and HMRC guidance may have changed since publication. Always seek professional advice before taking action.