Since the Supreme Court decision in the case of Wyatt v Vince in 2015, the law is clear in that delay is no bar to seeking a financial settlement arising out of divorce.
On 25th January 2017 the Court of Appeal dismissed a husband’s appeal against a financial settlement giving his ex-wife £2.7 million out of his assets, reportedly worth around £10million. The case, which was widely reported in the media, involved Lambretta fashion tycoon Glenn Briers.
Briefly, the facts were that the parties separated in 2002 and divorced in 2005; they had married in 1984 and had three children. They were both teachers during the marriage but in 1988 the husband started selling sportswear from his garage. In 1990 he gave up teaching to concentrate on the business. The wife continued to work, look after the children and help in the business until the separation.
The husband relied on certain legal points. The first and main point was that in the three years after the divorce the parties had negotiated a financial settlement: he had given the house to the wife and enough money for her to pay off the mortgage. Although there was no court order (called a clean break consent order), he argued that there was evidence of a ‘concluded agreement’ and that should stand.
There is case law that if there is an agreement reached between the parties after full and frank disclosure of their respective financial positions has been provided and they enter into an agreement, preferably with both having had independent legal advice, then this may be binding. It is very grey area and there are certainly no guarantees.
In the Briers case the judge found that the husband had not given the wife a true picture of his finances during the negotiations; indeed he was found to be “in psychological control” and the wife was intimidated. This argument therefore failed.
The husband’s second argument was that the wife should not be entitled to much more than the original settlement because of the delay. As in the case of Wyatt v Vince the fact of the delay itself did not stop the wife making a claim but it was reduced to slightly less than one third; if there had been no delay the starting point for division is equality. The fact that the wife contributed by working in the business its early days and brought up the children were relevant factors.
The case is the first to test the law after Wyatt v Vince. Although in the Briers case the husband argued that most of wealth was accumulated after the separation, it is clear that the wife was instrumental in building up the business for 12 years prior to the separation in 2002. The case may very well have been viewed differently if the husband’s business was started after the separation.
What this case once again demonstrates is the importance of obtaining a properly drafted and legally enforceable financial settlement at the time of the divorce. Although, it may seem unfair that an ex spouse can come back so many years later, divorcing couples need to be aware that this is the law as it currently stands.
To find out more, or to discuss your situation further, contact Taylor&Emmet on (0114) 218 4000, email info@tayloremmet.co.uk or follow the firm on Twitter @tayloremmet.
0 Comments