[Closed] Bonkers divorce ruling (maybe)

If the linked story is anything to go by, he'll be ok
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-31587592 😆

Agreed. If she gets a payout I think divorce courts are broken.

According to the article, he launched the business after they were divorced. Based on that I can't see what she contributed to his success.

As was once said Divorce - Latin for the removal of a mans wallet via his testicles.

Any children? If so avoided paying for them at the time?

From another sauce....

Kathleen Wyatt said she feared Dale Vince would ‘become violent’ when she went to him begging for cash after being left on benefits with two children.

Partial reporting again?

Wyatt married Vince in 1981 when the two were reportedly penniless and traveling England while living on state benefits. The couple had one child while they were married, and Vince helped to support Wyatt’s other child from a previous relationship. The hippie-like couple divorced in 1992, still broke. After the divorce, Vince lived for a time in an old ambulance powered by a home-made wind turbine.

But they'd be 20+ now...I don't think she needs the money to bring up the kids.

Court of Appeal judgment is here, and somewhat entertaining:

[url= http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/495.html ]The date of the separation cannot be clearly established but it was probably in 1984. The wife moved to Lowestoft where she survived on state benefits. The husband housed himself in Bath in an old ambulance. Neither was working in any conventional sense.[/url]

Financial remedy.

We need more info. For a Judge to say there was a case in the first place means someone with access to all the facts considered her case viable.

If for instance he avoided all payments and left her destitute along with her children why shouldn't she be able to chase him for recompense for the time she/her children suffered?

I'd be interested to see more facts and how this pans out.

My Dad paid squat throughout my childhood. I'm glad the CSA chases people vigorously today (for its faults).

Financial remedy.

We need more info.

Shouldn't any remedial payout be in line with his earning at the time? Given he was unemployed it probably isn't much.

Not sure I agree that she should benefit from his success now.

Putin too?

So it's basically a procedural issue at this stage. No one has yet been asked to decide whether she can have his money. The court has only been asked to decide whether the question is so insane that they should not even think about it.

They say no, because it isn't clear whether she made an application for financial provision 20 years ago, no one remembers because they were all on acid, and the files have long since been shredded...

Be afraid...
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392 ]Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash[/url]

So thats six Judges who knew the facts of what he did.

Why should we be afraid? I aint going to be riche' anytime soon 😀

Everybody calm down. The Supreme Court has ruled in her favour on the technical point of whether the claim should be struck out, and [url= http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/Supreme-Court-allows-appeal-in-Vince-v-Wyatt-2015-UKSC-14#.VQAaXfyUeao ]directs that the wife’s application proceed in the Family Division of the High Court[/url].

The next stage is substantive: her making the case for why she should get some of his money. The Supreme Court's press summary of the judgment says:

Ms Wyatt [b]faces formidable difficulties[/b] in seeking to establish that a financial order should be made in her favour, including the short duration of the marriage and the long delay since then. It is not clear whether she will be able to sustain her claim on the basis of need generated by her relationship with Mr Vince. However, section 25(2)(f) of the 1973 Act obliges the court to have regard to “the contributions which each of the parties has made … to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family”. Ms Wyatt will no doubt rely on her much greater contribution to the upbringing of the couple’s children over many years [34], a factor [b]which [u]may[/u] justify a financial order for a comparatively modest sum[/b].

[quote=nbt ]Be afraid...
Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

As BigDummy says, the ruling is simply that she isn't out of time to claim (which from what I'm reading was always likely to be the case as there is no time limitation on such claims). What she's entitled to is another matter.

So basically her argument would be that, in raising their children with no support from him, she forfeited earning opportunities for herself and made a contribution to his new-found capitalist success story?

As above, she may well have a case for a modest sum, not a huge slice of his cash.

a 65 yr old customer of mine was telling me how he still pays 200 quid a month to his ex wife almost 30 years down the line.. even though he's retired and about to move into sheltered accomodation

If she brought up the kids and he is a millionaire why not give a reasonable sum [ but small to him sum] like say 50k?

[quote=totalshell ]a 65 yr old customer of mine was telling me how he still pays 200 quid a month to his ex wife almost 30 years down the line.. even though he's retired and about to move into sheltered accomodation
FWIW, the law in Scotland is somewhat different and that doesn't happen.

[quoe]Shouldn't any remedial payout be in line with his earning at the time? Given he was unemployed it probably isn't much.

Out of interest, how does that work if earnings go up/down significantly? Is child supourt pegged against inflation or your wage? And what if you're a contractor and 'you as director' decide to pay yourself a big pension contribution, buy a new company vam, no dividend and minimum wage untill the kids are 18 when you suddenly give yourself a huge dividend?

csa is based on wages and you can use dividends to abuse this fact. You can then be taken to court for this as well....not me to be clear. Not sure of what happened before this time

If she brought up the kids and he is a millionaire why not give a reasonable sum

She should be told to sling her hook the sponging bitch! As soon as you're divorced the couple should'nt be paying the other anything other than child maintenance IMO

I've read through the Court of Appeal judgement linked above (it should be noted that the judges there ruled in favour of the husband, a ruling which has just been overturned by the Supreme Court), and a few facts from that which might help:

That may have prompted the wife to apply to the Child Support Agency for child support for the children. Her application was dated 24th March 1997. There was a review in 1998. The husband's business being then fledgling, it resulted in a nil assessment following a review of his circumstances.

Surprisingly, the wife made a second application to the Child Support Agency in 2001. For by then Emily was 22 years of age and Dane 18. That probably explains why the application was withdrawn.

Even assuming that the wife's evidence is accepted on all disputed issues of fact, for the reasons stated by Thorpe LJ there is no real prospect that the wife will succeed on her claim. I say this not only because of the long delay, but also because of all the other circumstances which doom the wife's application to failure. Thus, if the deputy judge's order stands, the ultimate result will be that (a) the wife recovers nothing, (b) the husband pays all the costs of both sides and (c) the husband has no prospect of recovering any of the costs which he has paid out. This is not an outcome which the court can contemplate with equanimity, however wealthy the husband may be.

The latter comment still effectively applies. IANAL, but the judge making that comment is, and the latest ruling simply brings into play the scenario he predicts (they have ruled that the deputy judge's order stands) - the wife still gets nothing, but the husband has to pay lots of money for the lawyers on both sides.

The latter comment still effectively applies.

And is a perfect example of how the only real winners in a lot of divorces are the lawyers!

I'm sure people are always compassionate, reasonable and have plenty of common sense when it comes to dealing with their exes....eh?

True for some but in the unlikely event I become an OBE millionaire business person I would be [s]happy [/s] willing to give her [s]enough money to buy my house of me :wink:[/s] a small some of money.

the husband has to pay lots of money for the lawyers on both sides.

"Here's a fiver. Buy yerself something nice".

Presumably he could have just given her this sum to make it go away?

A difficult decision, who do you hate more, ex's or lawyers, at least in this case the lawyers are working for the money.

[quote=Junkyard ]Presumably he could have just given her this sum to make it go away?

Maybe. From the sounds of things she's not the most rational in pursuing her legal action against him. I also suspect that given the way the law works on stuff like this, that it's not possible to make a full and final settlement and any payment he did make would be setting himself up to be pursued for more.

There was a review in 1998. The husband's business being then fledgling, it resulted in a nil assessment following a review of his circumstances.

But he started the company THREE years before. I wonder if its a case of hiding assets/etc etc.

Would LOVE To hear her side of the story over that decade and how she coped penniless with two children.

biglee1 - you have children you pay for them. Simple. And no, NOT the bare minimum that you can get away with (or nowt in this case it seems).

FWIW, the law in Scotland is somewhat different and that doesn't happen.

Hmm, I work with a guy who is expected to pay a proportion of his pension to the ex he divorced about 25 years ago. Or is that different again?

[quote=hora ]But he started the company THREE years before. I wonder if its a case of hiding assets/etc etc.

How do you know he'd actually made any money by then? I wouldn't have thought it at all unusual for a new company to make nothing for at least the first two years - nothing beyond what is needed to sustain the company.

Would LOVE To hear her side of the story over that decade and how she coped penniless with two children.
biglee1 - you have children you pay for them. Simple. And no, NOT the bare minimum that you can get away with (or nowt in this case it seems).

In much the same way as if they'd still been together I'd imagine, given that he was also penniless for the majority of that time. Try reading the CoA ruling linked above - his lack of money whilst his children were growing up isn't disputed, this isn't about the children.

thing is, at some point he's got loads of cash, and if she's struggled for years and years to feed and look after their kids, then it's up to him to try to help her out isn't it? Even if their both past the age when they're at school, just as a way of saying "thanks for looking after the kids"

If i was her, I'd be a bit peeved as well.

[quote=emsz ]thing is, at some point he's got loads of cash, and if she's struggled for years and years to feed and look after their kids, then it's up to him to try to help her out isn't it?

Struggled in the same way as if they'd still been together. If they had stayed together until the kids had grown up, he'd then left her and started a business and become a millionaire would she be entitled to his money for looking after the kids? In what way is this fundamentally different from that?

Another bit from the CoA ruling (which also isn't made invalid by their decision being overturned)

The facts of this case are extreme. Inpecuniosity has been the experience of all the wife's adult life. Both the men with whom she has entered into family life were seemingly equally impecunious. Her husband was the most improbable candidate for affluence. The wife no doubt can appeal to his sense of charity but in my judgment he is not to be compelled to boost the wife's income by the exercise of the jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Clauses Act 1973 the existence of which cannot now be plainly established and can only be presumed. He is not her insurer against life's eventualities.

True for some but in the unlikely event I become an OBE millionaire business person I would be happy

Presumably he could have just given her this sum to make it go away?

hora - Member

But he started the company THREE years before.

It's always possible that groundwork was laid beforehand. Friend of mine only started his company last year, but he couldn't have done that without support from his wife for several years before, with no obvious sign of progress or results (and certainly no earnings)

the bloke is quite hard to like - a good few years ago he made a big deal on BBC Countryfile about driving round in a "plug in" car powered by renewables only for it to be revealed later that his main car is actually a gas guzzling Range Rover.

Every time I drive up the M4 to London I marvel at the Ecotricity wind turbine by the motorway in Reading and the fact that Ecotricity receive around £1/4m a year in payments to NOT generate electricity from it.

It's always possible that groundwork was laid beforehand.

I also suspect that given the way the law works on stuff like this, that it's not possible to make a full and final settlement and any payment he did make would be setting himself up to be pursued for more.

It can be final if it's ordered by a court, or if it's mutually agreed in what's called a Consent Order, with some wording that dismisses all future claims.

A court can also order a nominal award that can be varied upwards or downwards - but only via another set of court hearings.

Usually though, there will be a trigger written into any financial order at which point payments will cease with no provision for future claims.

[i]In what way is this fundamentally different from that?[/i]

I don't know aracer, If it was me, I think I'd feel that I should make a contribution,that's all. share the good about a bit. (the were hippies after all!)

I suspect his charity is tempered by the amount of legal action she's already taken attempting to get money from him.

Yeah, you're probs right.

sad really that it's in the papers and stuff

The thing that is being lost in the headlines is that she has only won the right to bring the action.

She has been told she won't get what she asked for, and may get nothing at all.

I suspect his charity is tempered by the amount of legal action she's already taken attempting to get money from him.

The thing that is being lost in the headlines is that she has only won the right to bring the action.

She has been told she won't get what she asked for, and may get nothing at all.

^^This, absolutely.

It's headlines [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/windturbine-millionaires-ex-wins-divorce-battle-10100096.html ]like this[/url] that demonstrate either journalists don't really have a clue about what they're reporting on, or they aren't reporting on it for the right reasons.

I often can't decide either way.

@JY, just borrowing from the judges comments in CoA case I quoted in http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bonkers-divorce-ruling-maybe/page/2#post-6764581

Backtracks trying to safe face
Fails
😳

No backtracking needed - it was a fair comment not knowing the context of what I wrote (which was buried in a quote in a previous post I wouldn't expect everybody to read)

When I got divorced, solicitors were always on at me to make a full & final settlement. If this bloke or his ex wife had taken legal advice at the time of their divorce 20 years ago they would/should have been advised in a similar fashion.

He really needs to weed his back garden.

[quote=Dickyboy ]When I got divorced, solicitors were always on at me to make a full & final settlement. If this bloke or his ex wife had taken legal advice at the time of their divorce 20 years ago they would/should have been advised in a similar fashion.

One of the points of the argument in CoA is that all records of what happened in divorce proceedings have been lost because it was such a long time ago - and that it was therefore prejudicial to bring the action when such things could not be proved. How long do you need to keep records of divorce proceedings? (the answer of the Supreme Court seems to be "forever").

In what way is this fundamentally different from that?

I can answer that.

She did it on her own. That makes it a million times harder than sharing it with someone else, whether or not they did that on benefits/low income.

I think she should get something. Almost certainly not £1.9m she's asking for but something reasonably material that reflects the fact she brought his child up on her own.

or they aren't reporting on it for the right reasons.

I often can't decide either way.

Well that's also easy. It's the latter. Always is.

It's headlines like this that demonstrate either journalists don't really have a clue about what they're reporting on, or they aren't reporting on it for the right reasons.

Its not the headlines- its the misreporting in that link- it basically makes her out to be a complete digger.

'she lived on benefits' (no mention of children at all)

She only laid claim in 2011.

No other background story- nothing at all. It all reads flattering to him.

But then newspapers and the news can't report a mixed story. it has to be black and white so not to confused or bore readers.

[quote=hora ]Its not the headlines- its the misreporting in that link- it basically makes her out to be a complete digger.
...
She only laid claim in 2011.

You think it puts her in a better light if they report all of her legal actions against him (including for example the CSA application when their kids were over 18)?

^ no she made the application for financial remedy in 2011. Not support- remedy.

She also claimed that for his son from the age of 2-18yrs he didn't give her any support.

Maybe she couldn't afford to go after him sooner. Maybe he misled and said he couldn't afford/got to a point where eventually he couldn't conceal his success anymore until one day he thought 'nows the time/its late enough now'?

WHO knows?! none of us have access to the full details. Neither do the press otherwise they'd be printing more than just two paragraphs each.

[quote=hora ]WHO knows?! none of us have access to the full details. Neither do the press otherwise they'd be printing more than just two paragraphs each.

We have access to the CoA judgement, which is what I'm mainly basing my comments on, rather than news reports. The CSA claim was in 2001 and is a completely separate thing - as you point out it's not mentioned in the news reports, but the info is readily available. As are details of her other previous legal actions.

Do your own research 😉

A difficult decision, who do you hate more, ex's or lawyers, at least in this case the lawyers are working for the money.

But he started the company THREE years before. I wonder if its a case of hiding assets/etc etc.

Hippie millionaire ... 😯 I want to be hippie.

Serve him right for dipping his wick. 😆

The long and short of it is he should have agreed financial settlement at the point of his divorce...he is a nob! He obviously didn't have good initial legal advice, pay your money for a good solicitor its worth it in the long run!

[quote=PH1 ]The long and short of it is he should have agreed financial settlement at the point of his divorce...he is a nob! He obviously didn't have good initial legal advice, pay your money for a good solicitor its worth it in the long run!

Have you read the CoA judgement? That would have made no difference as there are no records (oh, and he had no money for a solicitor at that point either).

How long do you need to keep records of divorce proceedings? (the answer of the Supreme Court seems to be "forever")

This is a troubling point, but it's not really that onerous is it? Most of us have half-a-dozen pieces of paper that we manage to keep for decades, in a file marked "DOCUMENTS". The proportion of people who are so utterly shambolic that the bit of paper that ties off financial liability for their failed marriage isn't in that file must be pretty small.

Just out of interest, any STWers who have made it BIG with bitter ex-wives living in council houses?

Just out of interest, any STWers who have made it BIG with bitter ex-wives living in council houses having to bring up the STW'ers kids whilst you pay nothing to their maintenance and the state picks up the bill?

FTFY

You've actually broken it, hora - see CSA rulings on how BIG bloke in question had made it.

Very enlightening reading the posts on here and having read the link to the judgement. It's really clear who read the judgement and who didn't!!

He was on radio cost him £500000 so far as he has to pay her costs and his and the son has lived with him for the last 17 years [ grown up now obviously].

JY - now that is interesting.

My simple brain suggests she is entitled to "normal" maintenance and help with the costs of the child based on his earnings in those specific years that she was caring for the child.

I also think that if I get divorced I'm going for a full and final settlement, just in case I win the lottery later.

Re-read the full ruling. The wife should have pressed her case in the late nineties. Its too retrospective. The fact that all the files relating to the time can't be found/shredded doesn't help his case.

The son now lives and works with him? Yes post the first 18yrs of his life.

[quote=hora ]The wife should have pressed her case in the late nineties.

She made a CSA application then which resulted in a nil assessment - I thought you said you'd read the ruling?

Son is currently 33, and has apparently lived with him for 17 years...

Source for what age he was when he left as I cannot find an age for his son

Says they met in their twenties and married in 1981 and separated mid 80's no date for child
I guess its teenage to adulthood ?

Son born 2nd May 1981, separation probably 1984 - guess where I found that out 😉 Don't have info on when son went to live with husband, it just says "After completing his education Dane went to live with the husband. He has made his career in the husband's business" - was relying on your comment for how long he's lived with dad.

I really should do my own research 😛

Wives are entitled to share of pension in typical settlement

The original case is daft. Settlement final at the time and circumstances changed doesn't mean you can come back for more money like this

People are reading too much into the ruling I think - the judge has more or least implied that he thinks she should only get a token amount if she anything, however he's not ruling on the facts of that case - just on whether a claim could be made. Also sounds like the ex-husband is well rid of her!

[quote=aracer ]Son born 2nd May 1981

Correction: the CoA ruling write up appears to be incorrect. Currently reading the Supreme Court ruling, and that has his birthday as 2nd May 1983 and also suggests he only moved to live with his father when he was 18.

SUPREMECOURT.UK "https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0186_Judgment.pdf"

in case anybody else is interested

Call me a cynic - but considering the bloke's worth £100 million, has a business empire firmly in the black and the wife is a sharholder/director of some of the companies - I don't think the couple of million quid divorce settlement is going to be of huge issue to him considering the PR he's going to take out of it.

Anybody else not heard of Ecotricitry until this news broke - when the whole go green thing is everywhere? How many customers has it brought onto the books...?