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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll