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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
back-to-top-scroll