Add Back

A concept in financial remedy proceedings where the court notionally 'adds back' to one party's side of the balance sheet assets that they've already spent or dissipated, so they don't benefit from having reduced the matrimonial pot. It's the practical counterpart to the duty of full and frank disclosure: if one party has recklessly dissipated assets — through gambling, excessive spending, or transferring money away — the court can add the dissipated value back to that party's column, so the other party isn't disadvantaged by the loss. Add back is not automatic; the court has a discretion, and the bar is high — similar to the 'conduct' factor, it has to be inequitable to disregard the dissipation. Ordinary spending, even spending the other party disapproves of, usually isn't enough; the spending has to be reckless, in bad faith, or in breach of the duty of disclosure. Add back is distinct from 'notional capital' (where the court treats an asset the party could reasonably acquire as if they already had it). The leading guidance comes from cases such as Vaughan v Vaughan and Norris. Where add back is argued, the party claiming it must show, with evidence, what was spent, when, and why it should be added back.