087 822 1639
087 822 1639
South African property, businesses, trusts, investments and other assets may remain highly relevant when divorce proceedings take place in England & Wales – but identifying an asset, valuing it and actually implementing an English financial settlement against an asset situated in South Africa are separate questions.
A family may live in England while substantial parts of its wealth remain in South Africa. One spouse may own a house in Cape Town, shares in a Johannesburg business, a shareholder loan, interests connected to a South African trust, investment accounts or retirement interests.
An English divorce does not make those assets irrelevant simply because they are located outside England & Wales.
Equally, an English financial order should not automatically be assumed to transfer South African property, alter a South African company’s share register, bind South African trustees or compel a South African retirement fund to implement an English pension mechanism.
This article deals with identifying, valuing and implementing settlements against South African assets. Which country’s law governs the marriage’s proprietary consequences in the first place is a separate, earlier question, addressed in South African Divorce for South Africans Living Abroad — including a significant June 2026 Western Cape High Court development on how that question is now determined.
Cross-border divorce therefore requires two related analyses: what the England & Wales court may take into account when determining the financial position between the spouses, and what South African law requires to identify, value and ultimately deal with assets situated or structured in South Africa.
Martin Vermaak Attorneys Inc. is a South African law firm and advises on South African law. We do not currently practise as an England and Wales law firm. Advice on English financial-remedy law and proceedings should be obtained from an appropriately authorised England and Wales legal practitioner.
| Question | General position |
| Can South African assets matter in an English divorce? | Yes. The England & Wales financial-remedy framework requires consideration of the parties’ property and financial resources and is not confined simply to assets physically located in England. |
| Does an English divorce automatically transfer South African property? | No. The financial order and the practical South African implementation of that order are separate questions. |
| Are assets owned by a South African company automatically the shareholder spouse’s assets? | No. A company is a separate legal person. The spouse ordinarily owns shares or another interest in the company, not its individual assets. |
| Can a South African trust be relevant? | Potentially, but trust assets should not automatically be treated as assets personally owned by a trustee, founder or beneficiary. |
| Can shareholder loans matter separately from shares? | Yes. A shareholder loan may be a separate personal asset or liability and should be reconciled with the business valuation. |
| Can MVA assist where the divorce itself is in England? | Yes. MVA may advise on the South African-law aspects of property, companies, trusts, ANCs, pensions, evidence and implementation. |
| Does a South African asset need a South African valuation? | Often, where the value is disputed or the asset is specialised. The correct expert depends on the asset and the question requiring an answer. |
| Should implementation be considered before settlement? | Yes. A settlement can be economically attractive on paper but difficult to implement if South African legal, corporate, trust, tax or financing requirements have not been considered. |
The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 requires the England & Wales court, when exercising its financial-remedy powers, to consider the parties’ income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources, together with the other statutory circumstances of the case.
The existence of a South African asset may therefore be relevant to the overall financial picture even though the asset itself is located thousands of kilometres away.
That does not mean every foreign asset is automatically divided in a particular way.
The England & Wales legal team must determine the treatment of the asset under English law.
The South African legal team may separately be required to establish:
That distinction is especially important in high-value divorces.
A schedule may say: South African assets – R30 million.
That figure tells the legal team very little.
The assets could consist of:
Before debating value, the legal nature of each interest should be established.
The question is not merely: How much is it worth? It is: What does this spouse actually own?
Residential, commercial and investment property in South Africa can form a significant part of the family’s wealth.
Relevant questions may include:
A property worth R12 million with an R8 million bond does not represent R12 million of net wealth.
Similarly, an estimated market value is not necessarily the amount that will ultimately be realised after debt, transaction costs and any relevant tax consequences.
An England & Wales court may make financial orders under its own legal framework. The Matrimonial Causes Act includes powers concerning lump sums, property adjustment and sale in qualifying circumstances.
But the existence of an English order should not be confused with the South African conveyancing and legal steps necessary to alter ownership of immovable property registered in South Africa.
Before a settlement relies on a South African property being transferred or sold, the legal teams should establish:
That analysis should occur before the settlement is finalised rather than after an implementation problem emerges.
Private companies are frequently the most valuable and technically difficult South African assets in an international divorce.
A fundamental distinction is required.
A shareholder does not ordinarily own the company’s individual assets. The company itself is a separate legal person.
Accordingly, where a spouse owns a South African company, the financial analysis should normally begin with the spouse’s actual legal interests.
These may include:
Assume a South African business is said to be worth R100 million. A spouse owns 25%.
It is tempting to conclude: spouse’s interest = R25 million. That may be wrong.
The particular interest may be affected by:
The correct valuation mandate should therefore specify what is being valued.
Company value, enterprise value, equity value and the value of a particular shareholder’s interest are not necessarily the same thing.
A shareholder loan may materially change the financial picture.
A spouse may own shares worth R15 million while the South African company separately owes that spouse R6 million on loan account. Those are potentially different economic interests.
Conversely, the spouse may owe money to the company.
The loan account should therefore be analysed separately and then reconciled with the business valuation.
Otherwise two errors are possible. The loan may be omitted, understating the spouse’s estate. Or the loan may already have been reflected in the valuation and then be added again, resulting in double counting.
Suppose the company records show a shareholder loan of R10 million. That does not necessarily mean the spouse can withdraw R10 million tomorrow.
Relevant questions may include:
This distinction becomes important when an English settlement assumes that South African business wealth can immediately fund a substantial lump-sum payment.
Value and liquidity are not the same thing.
A South African trust requires separate analysis.
The fact that a spouse is a trustee, beneficiary, founder, donor or family member associated with the trust does not by itself establish that the spouse personally owns the trust’s assets.
Equally, the mere use of a trust structure should not prevent investigation where the trust is genuinely relevant to the matrimonial dispute.
Depending on the circumstances, the South African analysis may require consideration of:
The England & Wales practitioner can then determine what significance the resulting South African-law position has within the English financial-remedy proceedings.
Complexity is not proof of concealment.
Family trusts may have existed for legitimate estate-planning, succession, asset-management or family-governance reasons long before the marriage deteriorated.
The correct approach is evidence-led.
The legal team should establish the legal structure and actual administration rather than begin with either of two assumptions: “The trust owns it, therefore divorce can never reach it.” or “The spouse controls the family, therefore every trust asset belongs to the spouse.”
Neither is sufficiently precise.
South African investment portfolios and bank accounts are generally easier to identify than private businesses or trust structures, but other complications may arise.
These include:
A R10 million investment portfolio and R10 million in cash may also have materially different economic characteristics.
If substantial gains are embedded in the investment portfolio, tax advice may be appropriate before the parties assume the assets are economically equivalent.
Retirement interests require specialist treatment. They should not automatically be treated as ordinary investments.
South African divorce law contains a specific statutory framework dealing with qualifying pension interests, including sections 7(7) and 7(8) of the Divorce Act.
An English financial-remedy arrangement should therefore not assume that an English pension mechanism can simply be imposed upon a South African retirement fund.
Where a South African pension is material, the legal teams should identify:
South African and England & Wales retirement-divorce mechanisms are not interchangeable.
International divorce can make financial disclosure more complicated because one spouse may have substantially greater access to South African records than the other.
A genuine concern may arise from:
But missing information is not automatically evidence of dishonesty.
The investigation should identify the discrepancy and then seek the records capable of answering it.
Depending on the issue, relevant South African evidence may include:
Where the complexity and amount in dispute justify the cost, forensic accounting assistance may be appropriate.
An English lawyer should not assume that a foreign litigation process automatically gives unrestricted access to South African bank, company, trust or third-party information.
Cross-border evidence gathering can involve separate procedural requirements.
The appropriate mechanism depends on:
The objective should be targeted evidence gathering, not a speculative search through every South African financial record associated with the family.
Foreign assets should not automatically be valued using an exchange rate applied to an untested figure.
The underlying rand value must first be reliable.
Different assets may require different experts.
A substantial property may need an appropriate South African property valuer. A private business may require a business valuation. Complex transactions may justify forensic accounting. A trust-related claim may first require legal analysis before anyone knows what is actually being valued.
The legal question should therefore come before the expert mandate.
Cross-border settlements introduce another issue: exchange rates.
If a South African asset is valued at R20 million and the settlement obligation is expressed in pounds sterling, movements in GBP/ZAR can change the economic result between valuation, settlement, court order, sale and payment.
Where the amount is material, the settlement should identify:
This is a commercial consideration rather than simply a valuation issue.
Market value does not necessarily equal after-tax value.
A South African property, business interest or investment may carry latent tax consequences.
The transaction chosen to implement the divorce can also matter.
Where material tax exposure exists, specialist South African tax advice should be obtained before the settlement is finalised.
The role of the divorce lawyer is not to provide tax advice outside their expertise, but to identify when the settlement cannot safely be evaluated without it.
A divorce settlement is principally an arrangement between the spouses.
But South African assets may involve other parties whose rights cannot simply be overridden by agreement between the spouses.
These could include:
For example, spouses cannot simply agree that a South African bank must release one of them from a mortgage obligation.
Similarly, a proposed transfer of private-company shares may be affected by a shareholders’ agreement or the company’s constitutional documents.
Implementation should therefore be checked before the commercial bargain is signed.
Assume spouses live in England and their divorce proceeds there.
They jointly own a R15 million Cape Town property subject to a R6 million bond.
An English settlement proposes that one spouse retain the property and pay the other an equalising amount.
Before the settlement is finalised, the parties should establish the realistic South African value, current bond balance, whether the lender will release the departing spouse, the conveyancing process, transaction and tax consequences, and how the equalisation payment will be funded.
The English financial agreement and the South African implementation should be designed together.
Assume one spouse owns 40% of a Johannesburg private company.
The company as a whole is valued at R80 million.
It would be unsafe simply to record the spouse’s asset at R32 million.
The analysis should establish the rights attached to the shares, other shareholders, transfer restrictions, control, shareholder loans, company debt and the valuation basis.
The resulting South African valuation can then be used by the England & Wales legal team within the English financial-remedy analysis.
Assume a South African discretionary trust holds R50 million of investments.
One spouse is a trustee and beneficiary.
That does not establish that the spouse personally owns R50 million.
The South African trust position should first be analysed: trust terms, trustees, beneficiaries, distributions, loans, administration and the spouse’s actual rights.
The English practitioner can then advise on the relevance of those facts under England & Wales law.
Assume a spouse has shares worth R30 million, property equity of R10 million and a shareholder loan of R8 million.
The headline South African wealth is substantial.
But the property is bonded, the business requires working capital and the shareholder loan is subordinated.
A settlement requiring a very large sterling payment within 30 days could create a serious liquidity problem.
That is why ownership, valuation and liquidity should be analysed separately.
The matrimonial background: Marriage certificate, ANC and relevant matrimonial-property history.
Ownership: Identify precisely who owns each South African asset or legal interest.
Liabilities: Establish debt, security and third-party rights.
Companies: Identify shares, rights, shareholder loans and corporate restrictions.
Trusts: Establish the spouse’s legal relationship with each relevant structure.
Value: Determine what genuinely requires specialist valuation.
Disclosure: Identify missing information and the lawful route for obtaining it.
Liquidity: Establish whether valuable assets can actually fund the proposed settlement.
Tax: Identify transactions requiring specialist advice.
Implementation: Confirm that the proposed English settlement can practically be carried out in South Africa.
Where divorce proceedings take place in England & Wales, Martin Vermaak Attorneys may assist the client and their authorised England & Wales legal team with the South African-law component.
Depending on the matter, this may include:
The England & Wales solicitor remains responsible for advising on the English financial-remedy proceedings and the legal treatment of the South African assets by the England & Wales court.
Potentially. The England & Wales financial-remedy framework requires consideration of the parties’ property and financial resources. How a particular South African asset should be treated is a matter for the England & Wales legal team.
No. There is no general rule that the location of an asset or the fact of divorce automatically gives the other spouse half of it. The England & Wales practitioner must advise on the financial remedy available in the particular case.
No. The company is a separate legal person. You ordinarily own the shares or other legal interest, while the company owns its own assets.
Yes. A loan account and shares may represent separate economic interests. Their treatment should be reconciled with the business valuation.
No. Trust assets are not automatically personal assets of a trustee, beneficiary or founder. The structure and facts need to be established before their matrimonial significance can be assessed.
Do not assume so. The English financial order and the South African legal and conveyancing steps required to change ownership are separate matters.
MVA can identify the legal question and coordinate the South African legal analysis. Where a specialist valuation is required, an appropriately qualified independent valuer should answer the valuation question.
The concern should be evidence-based. Appropriate financial records and disclosure mechanisms can then be considered and, where justified, forensic financial analysis may be used.
Not necessarily. Depending on the English settlement and South African practical considerations, there may be alternatives such as retention by one spouse, allocation of other assets, deferred payment or another properly structured solution.
Yes. MVA can provide South African-law analysis and coordinate the South African part of the matter while the authorised England & Wales practitioner remains responsible for English-law advice and proceedings.
South African assets can materially affect an English divorce even where both spouses have established their lives in England.
The critical issue is not simply where the asset is located.
The legal teams need to establish what the asset is, who owns it, what it is worth, what liabilities and third-party rights attach to it, and whether the proposed settlement can actually be implemented in South Africa.
Private companies, shareholder loans, trusts, property, retirement interests and complex family wealth structures require particular care because legal ownership, control, valuation and liquidity may all point in different directions.
For substantial or complex estates, the strongest approach is therefore coordinated: the England & Wales legal team determines the English financial-remedy strategy, while South African advisers establish the South African legal, financial and implementation position.
For the broader cross-border framework, see South Africa-England Divorce & Family Law and South African Divorce for South Africans Living Abroad.
Author: Martin Vermaak, B.Proc, LLB
Attorney of the High Court of South Africa | Director, Martin Vermaak Attorneys | Over 20 years’ experience in divorce and family law
Disclaimer
This information has been prepared for general educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal, financial, tax or other professional advice. South African family law is fact-specific, and the applicable legal position may depend on the circumstances of the individual matter. Readers should obtain independent professional advice appropriate to their circumstances before making legal, financial or other decisions.
Martin Vermaak Attorneys Inc. is a South African law firm and advises on South African law. We do not currently practise as an England and Wales law firm. Advice or representation concerning the law of England and Wales should be obtained from an appropriately authorised England and Wales legal practitioner.
Copyright © 2026 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy