header-logo header-logo

09 October 2015 / Caroline Bowden
Issue: 7671 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Fields of gold?

Caroline Bowden examines whether cases containing complex factors, but wealthy spouses, should be easy to settle

The case of Fields v Fields [2015] EWHC 167 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 163 (Jun) was a tabloid dream, with its exotic cocktail of a Russian Beauty Queen who was divorcing a five times married, wealthy US lawyer.

Beneath the drama, Mr Justice Holman was frustrated at the case costs of over £1m, out of liquid assets of £4.5m. As each party would retain “considerable prosperity”, he thought it should have been “very easy” to settle.

Yet at the same time, in a judgment of over 13,000 words, he identified multiple complex and disputed issues. He never criticised anyone for defining and probing these issues: indeed they appeared to be vital to his carefully considered order. So what, if anything, makes an out-of-court settlement easier or more likely for the wealthier clients?

The order

The husband earned £1.3m-£1.9m a year and the wife did not work. He was ordered to pay his wife £320,000 a year

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
back-to-top-scroll