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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll