header-logo header-logo

11 March 2015
Issue: 7644 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Ex-wife can pursue windmill millionaire

Lawyers welcomed a unanimous Supreme Court decision to grant a wife permission to seek financial provision from the husband she divorced 22 years ago when he was penniless.

Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14 concerned an unusual set of circumstances. Ms Wyatt separated from Mr Vince in 1984 and divorced him in 1992 when he was a new age traveller living in a disused ambulance. She brought up their children in straitened circumstances but Mr Vince went on to develop a successful windmill business and is now a multi-millionaire.

Michael Gouriet, partner in Withers' family law team, says: “The extraordinary circumstances of this case make it an extremely rare beast and, as such, it will not open the floodgates on historic claims being reopened and appealed.

“The judgment merely stresses that Ms Wyatt is entitled to be heard and the key resulting question is whether she will now get any retrospective award in recognition of her contribution for raising their son. The judgment warns of the 'formidable difficulties' she faces in this regard, but the hint at fairness indicates that she may not leave empty-handed.”

Deborah Jeff, partner and head of family at Seddons, says: “This decision brings some helpful clarity to interpretation of matrimonial law regarding the factors that are taken into account when deciding a financial settlement.

“Whilst at first glance Ms Wyatt’s claim appears to be unreasonable and out of time, further analysis of the case reveals her ongoing contribution to the family by caring for the parties’ son post-separation. It was during such time that Mr Vince began building his business empire and in the eyes of the law contributions of both a financial and non-financial nature are equally valuable.  

“It has been the passage of time before making such claim against Mr Vince that most lawyers struggle with in justifying the wife’s application. However, this ruling appears to suggest that the number of years that have elapsed is just another factor that must be taken into account in determining the wife’s claim and indeed all such factors must be considered under s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It certainly doesn’t time-bar the application. 

“Whilst it may be seen to open the floodgates to other former spouses in similar circumstances, the final determination of the wife’s claim by a High Court judge will no doubt give further guidance to applications in similar circumstances.”

 

Issue: 7644 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll