header-logo header-logo

Ex-wife can pursue windmill millionaire

11 March 2015
Issue: 7644 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers welcomed a unanimous Supreme Court decision to grant a wife permission to seek financial provision from the husband she divorced 22 years ago when he was penniless.

Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14 concerned an unusual set of circumstances. Ms Wyatt separated from Mr Vince in 1984 and divorced him in 1992 when he was a new age traveller living in a disused ambulance. She brought up their children in straitened circumstances but Mr Vince went on to develop a successful windmill business and is now a multi-millionaire.

Michael Gouriet, partner in Withers' family law team, says: “The extraordinary circumstances of this case make it an extremely rare beast and, as such, it will not open the floodgates on historic claims being reopened and appealed.

“The judgment merely stresses that Ms Wyatt is entitled to be heard and the key resulting question is whether she will now get any retrospective award in recognition of her contribution for raising their son. The judgment warns of the 'formidable difficulties' she faces in this regard, but the hint at fairness indicates that she may not leave empty-handed.”

Deborah Jeff, partner and head of family at Seddons, says: “This decision brings some helpful clarity to interpretation of matrimonial law regarding the factors that are taken into account when deciding a financial settlement.

“Whilst at first glance Ms Wyatt’s claim appears to be unreasonable and out of time, further analysis of the case reveals her ongoing contribution to the family by caring for the parties’ son post-separation. It was during such time that Mr Vince began building his business empire and in the eyes of the law contributions of both a financial and non-financial nature are equally valuable.  

“It has been the passage of time before making such claim against Mr Vince that most lawyers struggle with in justifying the wife’s application. However, this ruling appears to suggest that the number of years that have elapsed is just another factor that must be taken into account in determining the wife’s claim and indeed all such factors must be considered under s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It certainly doesn’t time-bar the application. 

“Whilst it may be seen to open the floodgates to other former spouses in similar circumstances, the final determination of the wife’s claim by a High Court judge will no doubt give further guidance to applications in similar circumstances.”

 

Issue: 7644 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll