The impact of the delayed divorce battle

The decision by the Supreme Court to allow a wife’s claim to proceed 20 years after divorce has triggered much debate, but is the ruling as mad as it seems and will it open the floodgates to others seeking a share of a former partner’s wealth?

Kathleen Wyatt, the former wife of Dale Vince, is fighting for a £1.9m slice of his fortune. While they were together, they led a ‘new age’ lifestyle with limited money and assets. Nearly 10 years after they split, he set up a successful wind power business, which has since made him a multi-millionaire.

The businessman has described the Supreme Court’s decision as ‘mad’ and ‘like paying out on a very old lottery ticket’. He has also claimed they reached a financial deal when they divorced but can't prove it because the papers have been lost or destroyed and not even the court has kept papers going back that far.
Despite the timescales however, the Supreme Court’s decision isn’t as mad as it appears. Mr Vince applied to have his ex wife’s claim struck out using a legal procedure known as summary judgement. In basic terms that means the judge was asked to dismiss the case on the basis there is no case to look at. But family law was drafted and implemented 40 years ago and did not include a provision for summary judgement, so the Supreme Court dismissed the application. This meant it was legally recognisable and could therefore be pursued.

The Supreme Court stated that the main issue to be tried is the claim that Ms Wyatt raised their son with no financial support from Mr Vince. Although she is likely to struggle to prove her case as proceedings develop, this is one factor which the court believes could justify a financial order – and some may say rightly so.

So what happens next?

Well for Ms Wyatt and Mr Vince, it’s back to the Family Court. A senior judge will manage them through the financial remedy procedure. Eventually they will either compromise and secure an order by consent or more likely, it will run through to a final determinative hearing when the judge will hand down a judgement.

Will this open the floodgates to similar claims?

In reality, that’s unlikely. There aren’t many who have achieved multi-millionaire status following an earlier divorce. And would Ms Wyatt have brought the case if Mr Vince had not gone on to be rich? I suspect not. It’s also worth bearing in mind, that she only proceeded with her claim after an earlier court ordered Mr Vince to contribute £ 175,000 to her costs to help fund it.

This case does however, highlights the need for those going through a divorce to reach a financial settlement at the time. To avoid any uncertainty in the future, a Financial Remedy Order must be obtained from the court, even if there are no assets to divide. If your luck changes or your business or career takes off, this is the only way to dismiss any future claims to a share of your wealth earned after the divorce – even if that’s many years in the future.

Mark Mosley is Head of Family Law at Vincents Solicitors