Don’t look back in anger? Try telling that to Dale Vince

During the couple’s relationship, the pair lived a nomadic lifestyle, surviving on very little money. Following their separation, life continued in a similar manner for Ms Wyatt, who today lives in an ex-council house in Wales with her children. However, things changed dramatically for Mr Vince when he founded Ecotricity in 1995, which is now one of the UK’s biggest green energy companies.Mr Vince’s new lifestyle mirrors his business success and he currently lives in a £3 million 18th-century castle with his new wife and their son.

At first glance, it seems obvious that any maintenance claim brought by Ms Wyatt so long after their divorce should fall flat. After all, the maths is plain and simple: Mr Vince’s success came three years after the couple divorced and therefore this surely means that Ms Wyatt’s ship has sailed and she has no right to any of her ex-husband’s earnings? This logic was certainly used by Lord Justice Thorpe in the Court of Appeal, who stated that Mr Vince was not to be Ms Wyatt’s ‘insurer against life’s eventualities’. However, shockingly, when the matter reached the Supreme Court, Lord Wilson ruled that Ms Wyatt should be entitled to bring a claim against her ex-husband and stated that the matter should be heard by a judge in the Family Division of the High Court.

When the case does come before the High Court, Ms Wyatt will likely base her claim on her significant childcare contributions over the years. Mr Vince will rely on the ridiculously long delay in the claim being brought, as well as the fact that although the couple were officially married for 11 years, they actually only enjoyed marital cohabitation for two years.

Although Ms Wyatt’s claim may not be successful, the fact that she has received permission to bring it before a Judge is still extremely unsettling for divorcees, who should not have to live in fear that their divorces, which they presumed to be ‘done and dusted’, may rear their ugly heads in the form of a claim in the future.

If nothing more, the Supreme Court’s ruling comes as a huge warning to anyone whose marriage ends in divorce, and that warning is quite straightforward: it is imperative to get a final order so that all monetary claims are dealt with together with the divorce. It is certainly understandable why many fall into the trap of thinking that a clean break is unnecessary; after all, when a couple have lived on an extremely low budget throughout their marriage, the cost of a court order is likely be viewed as an unnecessary expense. However, it is vital for couples to realise that things can and do change – one party may win the lottery, a loved one may leave a large and unexpected inheritance, or one party may start a business that reaches a level of success they couldn’t have imagined in their wildest dreams.

Today, separating spouses are privy to the ‘online quickie divorce’, a service that allows parties to get divorced for a fixed fee of as little as £100 plus VAT. Whilst such services may appear appealing and are often very useful for those looking to keep their divorce costs to a minimum, it is imperative for couples to understand that such a service often does not deal with matrimonial finances and instead only take the couple to the decree absolute stage of their divorce.

In order for both spouses to move on with their independent lives after divorce, it is crucial that they draft, approve and sign a final financial order before submitting it to court for approval. Whilst the cost of a lawyer drafting such an agreement may be a slight inconvenience, it will be miniscule compared to a claim that could be brought years later by an ex-spouse with a hefty sense of entitlement. Nobody wants to be looking over their shoulder after divorce and the best insurance against having to do this is to tie things up at the point of divorce instead of leaving loose ends

Artist divorce case highlights sexism of the UK courts – and it’s not the women who are suffering

A stay-at-home father who was supported by his millionaire wife is appealing a court decision that would see him receive a £300,000 lump sum, as well as a long term £50,000 annual maintenance payment.

His appeal is based on the fact that his lump sum payment is to be partially funded by the sale of the former matrimonial home, in which he still lives, as well as the fact that his maintenance payments were calculated on the basis that he goes back to full-time work and secures the salary that he had 11 years ago.

Rupert Nightingale had worked as a picture editor and photo director for Men’s Health magazine until 2003, when he gave up his full time profession to pursue a part-time career in fine art photography, whilst also acting as a househusband. He was married to his wife, Kirsten Turner, for seven years, having dated her for over a decade beforehand. Ms Turner had supported the family during the marriage, earning £420,000 per annum as a partner at PWC.

Mr Nightingale believes that he should be able to remain in the former matrimonial home, have his maintenance payments upped by 50% and continue being a househusband on at least a part-time basis. He believes that the court has been guilty of gender bias and does not think that the same order would have been made in relation to a housewife in his position.

As Lord Nicholls explained in White v White [2000] , fairness should be the ultimate consideration by a court dealing with financial distribution on divorce. However, the focus in this case should not be whether the law is fair to homemakers, but rather whether the MCA 1973 S25 factors have been applied in the same way that they would have been if Mr Nightingale had been a woman.

The strongest argument in Mr Nightingale’s favour is likely to be found through S25(2)(f) MCA 1973, under which the court must give consideration to the contributions each party has made to the welfare of the family. It has been highlighted many times that there must not be any bias in favour of the breadwinner and against the homemaker, and this has protected many women who have sacrificed their careers to be housewives and child-carers.

Surely then, Mr Nightingale, who acted in the same manner, should also receive such protection? After all, the decision for him to cease full time work will have been made jointly by him and his ex-wife, and it would no doubt have been his support as a househusband that enabled Ms Turner to progress so far in her career.

When considering financial resources under S25(2)(a), the Court is to take into account not just present resources, but also those that will become available in the foreseeable future. For this reason, a spouse’s earning capacity can be considered and this explains the court’s decision to make an order based on Mr Nightingale returning to full-time employment. However, the court does not seem to have applied this factor in the same way in which they would have applied it to a woman in Mr Nightingale’s position, as they appear to have overlooked the fact that he has dedicated the past decade to childcare, which may have damaged his earning capacity.

The financial needs of a party to be considered under S25(2)(b) can often be reviewed jointly with the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of marriage – a consideration under S25(2)(c). Mr Nightingale would have become accustomed to a certain lifestyle when married to Ms Turner – one that he will not be able to maintain unless he returns to full-time employment. It can therefore be said that the court order does not meet his financial needs, despite the fact history has seen women successfully claim that they need three houses.

The court may, of course, argue that they have not been sexist and that they would have applied the law in the same way if the roles of the couple had been reversed. They could claim that the basis of the order rested on the relatively short length of the 7-year marriage, along with the fact that the couple’s child is now spending four nights with Ms Turner and just three with Mr Nightingale. The latter factor may also justify why the court did not deem it appropriate to keep Mr Nightingale living in the former matrimonial home.

“The difficulty for Mr Nightingale,” says Katie McCann, Head of Family for Kuits, “is that it is impossible to say with absolute certainty what the court would have done if the spousal role had been reversed. There may be those who believe that the law is incorrect and that those who are able to go back to work should have to, even if they have taken many years out to raise their children. However, this is not the question at hand.

“The imperative question is whether the law is being applied equally to both sexes, and the case of Mr Nightingale seems to suggest that it is not. The S25 factors should not be simply about protecting women who are vulnerable, but rather about protecting any spouse in the financially weaker position. This case suggests that fathers who make such a sacrifice are not necessarily guaranteed the same protection afforded to mothers who do the same.”

Lessons from Thiry: The important distinction between financial and litigation misconduct

Property tycoon Didier Thiry has been ordered to pay his ex-wife Alisa Thiry £17 million in a judgement issued by Sir Peter Singer. Due to Mr Thiry’s ill behaviour, which included him acting in a ‘financially predatory fashion’, as well as bombarding his ex-wife with communications throughout the proceedings, the judgement is riddled with references to Thiry’s misconduct. Indeed, Sir Singer described Mr Thiry as an ‘unprincipled rogue’ who had shown a ‘sadistic side to his personality’.

The strong descriptions used in the judgement have led to some people inaccurately suggesting that Mr Thiry’s misconduct during the legal proceedings, which also includes failure to disclose his finances, has had a direct impact on the size of the financial sum awarded by Sir Singer. This is, in fact, incorrect; and, in order to fully understand the outcome, a distinction must be made between this (Thiry’s litigation misconduct) and his financial misconduct throughout the time of their marriage.

When dealing with financial settlements upon divorce, the court may take into account certain factors. Financial conduct is one such factor that may be considered under S25(2)(g) MCA 1973 if it would be inequitable to disregard it. Mr Thiry’s financial misconduct included him preying on his ex-wife for his profit and to her detriment after she had trusted his advice on his reassurance that he was an ‘experienced investor and financial expert’. As explained by Burton J in S v S (non-matrimonial property: conduct)* , only conduct that causes a ‘gasp’ should be considered – as opposed to that which only produces a ‘gulp’. Sir Singer clearly felt that this behaviour had the ‘gasp factor’ and his award reflects this accordingly.

Litigation misconduct, on the other hand, only covers behaviour that takes place during the proceedings. In the case of Mr Thiry, this included his financial non-disclosure and offensive statements made to his ex-wife and her lawyers. It is highly relevant that this behaviour took place once the Thirys’ marriage had broken down. As suggested by Thorpe LJ in Tavoulareas v Tavoulareas** , a clear distinction between marital conduct and litigation conduct is imperative, due to the fact that S25(2)(g) should only catch marital misconduct.

Sir Singer honoured the above distinction in his judgement by not attaching a punitive element to Thiry’s litigation behaviour when dealing with the capital award. Although Mr Thiry’s conduct during litigation was unacceptable, his punishment for such behaviour did not come in the form of a generous financial award to Mrs Thiry. His financial conduct throughout the marriage, on the other hand, will have been considered as Sir Singer attempted to restore Mrs Thiry back to the position she had been in when they married.

Mr Thiry’s litigation behaviour, however, is penalised by way of a costs order to his detriment, as Sir Singer instructed him to pay Mrs Thiry’s entire £456,000 legal bill. This indicative move serves as a warning that, while a party’s bad behaviour during proceedings cannot affect the terms of an order, one should not assume that it will go unpunished. Although a costs penalty for litigation misconduct is discretionary, the fact that a judge is willing to order a disruptive party to pay the other side’s half a million pound legal bill in its entirety should serve as a significant deterrent against acting in such a manner.

Hohn divorce settlement secures the UK’s position as the divorce capital of the world

It has been an exciting few weeks in the world of divorce settlements. Less than a month after American Billionaire Harold Hamm was ordered to pay his ex-wife almost $1 billion, the UK’s largest divorce pay-out has hit the headlines as Mrs Justice Roberts ruled that Ms Cooper-Hohn is entitled to £337 million following her divorce from philanthropist Sir Chris Hohn.

Although the size of the couple’s wealth was a source of contention throughout the trial, it has been reported that they had assets worth more than £700 million, which means that Ms Cooper-Hohn has been awarded about 40% of the wealth. This near to equal split is miles apart from the Hamm settlement, which although saw Mrs Hamm receive a much greater sum, actually only represented one tenth of the Hamm’s fortune. The large discrepancy between the percentages awarded to the ex-wives highlights the generous awards that are often made by UK judges, which – some would argue – secures the UK’s position as the divorce capital of the world

Attempting to depart from an equal split, Sir Chris Hohn argued that he had made a special contribution that justified him retaining three-quarters of the wealth. Counsel for Sir Hohn, Lewis Marks QC explained, “The husband was the sole decision-maker in this enterprise. Without him there is no business.” Ms Cooper-Hohn strongly disputed this claim. She stated that she had worked long hours on behalf of their charitable foundation, The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. She also claimed that she had been the one to turn her ex-husband’s attention to charitable giving, stating that when they met he had only been interested in making money.

Although the full judgement has not yet been published, what we currently have appears to reiterate the principle that one spouse’s contribution should generally not be viewed as being superior to the others. Although Sir Hohn argued that he had made a stellar contribution by claiming that he was the “unbelievable money maker”, it appears that this was rejected and, instead, the court reemphasised the Lambert principle.  As Thorpe LJ had pointed out in this 2002 case, “Special contribution remains a legitimate possibility, but only in exceptional circumstances… The stellar contributor is a very rare creature, the likes of which would seldom be seen.”

Sir Hohn does not appear to have qualified as a ‘stellar contributor’. For this reason, the Hohn case highlights how difficult it is to displace the principle that both parties’ contributions should be viewed as equal in the majority of situations. Realistically, it will likely have been the support of his wife that allowed Sir Hohn to have progressed so far in his career. Be it the emotional aid or practical assistance, such as caring for their four children and her position as chief executive officer of the ex-couple’s charity, Ms Cooper-Hohn’s actions will have aided Sir Hohn in achieving such a high level of success.

Despite the sizable figure that has been awarded to Ms Cooper-Hohn, it has been reported that she intends to appeal the decision, presumably on the ground that there should have been an exact 50/50 split. Without the full judgement it is impossible to understand Mrs Justice Robert’s logic when dealing with this case and we will therefore await with bated breath its release on 12 December.

Family Dispute Resolution Week: A Look at Mediation

Mediation will make the divorce process quicker, fairer and more empowering for both parties, says a family law expert at Manchester-based Kuits Solicitors today to mark the beginning of Family Dispute Resolution Week.

The comments come from Kuits’ Head of Family Law, Katie McCann, in response to further advancements made by the government to encourage divorcing couples to stay out of court in favour of mediation services.

“Last April saw the introduction of compulsory Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAM) for divorcing couples,” says McCann. “The purpose of these meetings is to provide the couple with information in relation to mediation and other forms of non-court-based dispute resolution. In a further attempt to encourage divorcing couples to use mediation as an alternative to the courts, a free mediation session will now be available, as long as one of them qualifies for legal aid.”

Previously, only the party eligible for legal aid was entitled to receive a complimentary session, whilst the other party had to pay for it. The Chief Executive of National Family Mediation, Jane Robey, says that the new scheme seeks to aid people’s understanding of what mediation can achieve, presumably by allowing them to experience the benefits of it first-hand.

MIAMs, along with the free initial mediation sessions, have the potential to enable ex-couples to reach agreements regarding finances and children outside of court. Commenting on the benefits of mediation the Justice Minister, Simon Hughes states: “Mediation works and we are committed to making sure that more people make use of it, rather than go through the confrontational and stressful experience of going to court.”

As well as being less stressful than court, an additional benefit of mediation is a financial one. David Norgrove, chairman of the Family Justice Review, estimates that, if used, mediation has the potential to reduce legal aid costs by £100million – and it is not only the government who would reap the financial rewards. Ex-couples would also benefit significantly due to the fact that only one mediator is required, as opposed to two lawyers, and the hourly rate of a mediator is commonly less than that of a lawyer. However, families should be aware that, should mediation be unsuccessful and lawyers instructed at a later date, costs are likely to end up higher than they would have been if lawyers had been instructed at the outset.

“There certainly exists the potential for mediation to be a success due the fact that it allows for effective communication between the parties, who are able to speak directly, as opposed to having to pass their opinions and negotiations through their lawyers,” says McCann. “Not only can this save a lot of time, but it also ensures that words are not minced or misinterpreted. Without the court getting involved, an ex-couple can potentially reach a subjective, tailored arrangement that works best for them, without feeling that they are being ordered to do so. Significantly, it is often the non-forced nature of the arrangement reached that attracts separating couples to mediation.”

McCann also thinks that the fact that an ex-couple have managed to sit down and reach an agreement using mediation will mean that they have effectively communicated and compromised with each other. The skills acquired will hopefully allow them to renegotiate their arrangements should they require adaptation in the future, especially in relation to arrangements for the children.

“Due to the benefits attached to mediation, it is understandable why the government are encouraging more couples to attempt it,” says McCann. “Although couples cannot be forced to mediate, the existence of compulsory MIAMs suggests that there is some sort of pressure being placed on separating parties to consider it. However, the government should consider whether this pressure could potentially threaten the success of mediation, due to the fact that it removes the voluntary element – if an ex-couple attend mediation against their wishes, there may be less chance of them co-operating in order to reach a suitable agreement.”

McCann goes on to note that, even when attendance at mediation is voluntary, there are still risks attached to the process, particularly for cases involving intricate financial complexities: “Mediation does not attract the same disclosure mechanisms as the court does and therefore a party may find it easier to conceal financial information during the mediation process,” explains McCann. “This, together with the fact that the mediator remains neutral throughout the process, offering no legal advice, can result in an unfair agreement being reached. As long as both parties are aware of these potential limitations, for many, mediation will provide a welcome alternative to court proceedings.”

Ultimately, McCann applauds the government’s support of mediation: “Anything that empowers couples going through the upset of divorce is a great thing. A settlement reached on their own terms is always better than an artificial result imposed by a stranger: the judge. At Kuits, we are great supporters of empowering clients to reach fair and equitable resolutions in the quickest and most effective way.”

“Of course, while divorce cases can often be extremely acrimonious (and therefore the government cannot expect every separating couple to mediate), for the majority of separating couples, mediation provides a real opportunity for them to settle their disputes outside of the court room – and the service is set to get even stronger in the future.”

Indeed, from January 2015, the Family Mediation Council (FMC) will introduce a new accreditation scheme and new professional standards that all mediators will have to work towards. In addition to this, all mediators and those training to be mediators will have to register with the FMC. It is hoped that the stricter criteria will result in a greater confidence being placed in the mediation system, which in turn will result in a rise in its popularity. Although the government is unlikely to ever make mediation itself compulsory, if its effectiveness is well documented then couples will be eager to use it without pressure.