Court Affirms Gender Reassignment Surgery as a Joint Financial Responsibility – JY V KF {2025} EWFC 195

In a first instance decision by HHJ Farquhar sitting in the Brighton Family Court, the court considered as a specific issue whether the costs of the respondent’s gender reassignment surgery should be met from the matrimonial pot.

The parties were ‘high net worth’ individuals, with assets totalling over £3,000.000. Their legal costs totalled over £1,000.000.

When the parties met in 1998, the respondent was a biological male. The applicant stated that in 2022 the respondent had informed her, that she was intending to ‘transition’ to a woman. The respondent stated that the applicant was aware she was a trans-person before they married in 2002.

The Court described the issue as ‘having generated significant emotion from both of the parties,’ the applicant’s position was that the marriage had broken down as a result of the respondent’s decision to transition to a woman and undergo the surgery, and it could not be right therefore that she should have to pay half the costs of the surgery from the matrimonial funds. It was argued that if the respondent wanted the surgery, that was her choice, but it must be paid for out of her own funds.

The respondent argued that the costs of the gender reassignment surgery should be treated like any other medical cost which would ordinarily be met from the joint assets, that it would be like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery and accordingly the cost should be met from joint funds. The court noted that the precise costs of the surgery had not been produced, only an estimate in the region of £160,000.00, but it was satisfied this was a reasonable figure.

In considering the criteria under section 25 (2) (b) of the MCA 1973, the court found that it was difficult to see how the costs of the gender realignment surgery cannot come under the heading of ‘needs.’ It was not suggested that the costs should be considered as conduct, nor could it be. It could not come under the heading of ‘wanton or reckless’ expenditure that could warrant an add back consideration. This was clearly not akin to cosmetic surgery and could not be considered in such a light.

The court referred to the consideration of what amounts to ‘needs’ within the Family Justice Council’s ‘Guidance on Financial Needs on Divorce’ document, which was referred to by Peel J in WC v HC {2022} WFC 22 and reiterated that ‘needs is a very broad concept with no single definition in family law.’

HHJ Farquhar was satisfied that the respondent’s need was not matched by a similar need for the applicant and as such it was reasonable for the money spent meeting that need to come out of joint resources.

It remains to be seen whether this decision will be appealed. This was a case with significant assets, and it might be questioned whether the same approach would have been taken in a case with more limited resources.