The Court of Appeal has ruled against insurance magnate John Charman and confirmed that the UK's largest-ever divorce settlement should stand.
In September 2006, the Family Division of the High Court ordered that Mr Charman's former wife Beverly should receive a lump sum of £40m and retain existing assets of £8m already in her own name. To accomplish this, it ordered that a trust set up by the couple should be divided, not retained for the benefit of their children.
The family wealth was estimated to exceed £130m and the couple had been married for 28 years before their divorce. Virtually all of their wealth had been created during that time. Mr Charman had offered his wife a settlement of £20m, unforgettably stating that it was 'more than anyone could spend in a lifetime'.
The decision confirms that there is a presumption by the courts that 'assets of the marriage' (i.e. those that are created during the marriage as opposed to being brought to it by one of the spouses or created after the couple separates) belong to the ex-spouses in equal shares.
The judges were critical of the current law in this area and called for pre-nuptial agreements to be made binding in law. "How much difference this would have made in a case such as this is moot," says Karen Moores "as prior to their marriage, the Charmans were of modest means."
This decision and similar ones prior to it are not necessarily the 'bonanza for wives' that they are being portrayed as in the media. For example, in a recent case in which a wife claimed a share of her husband's expected future earnings, the claim was rejected as she had not contributed to his success at work. The UK does, however, remain a very attractive place for divorce proceedings to be brought where there is a successful spouse and significant family wealth.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
