Our Family law solicitors based in our London City and West End explore the implications for financial arrangements arising out of divorce proceedings following the Supreme Court decision in Wyatt gegen Vince, 2015 UKSC 14.
In this case the Supreme Court allowed an ex-wife to bring a claim against her ex-husband 22 years after being divorced. The couple were penniless at the time but years later Mr Vince made a fortune in the renewable energy business while Ms Wyatt and the children endured a life on the bread line. At the time of the divorce their financial arrangements had not been settled by a court order, giving Ms Wyatt the prospect of a claim years later.
Ms Wyatt still faces an uphill struggle in making her claim, and is unlikely to receive anywhere near the 1.9 million pounds she asked for, but Mr Vince still has to face the claim and incur huge costs in doing so. The case highlights the importance of putting in place legally binding financial settlements at the time of divorce, even if it appears then that there are no assets to speak of. Parties are then enabled to move on without fear of claims in later life.
In der folgenden Analyse gehen wir näher auf einige der rechtlichen Aspekte ein. Wenn Sie bereits eine Scheidung durchlaufen haben und über keine finanzielle Vereinbarung (üblicherweise als “einvernehmliche Vereinbarung” bezeichnet) verfügen, empfehlen wir Ihnen dringend, Ihre Situation im Lichte dieser Entwicklung zu überprüfen.
Our Family law solicitors based in our London City and West End offices are available to assist you should you which to discuss the implications of this case or take any family law advice. Please contact on 020 7613 1402 and ask to speak to:
Rachel Duke
Daniel Martinez
Melissa Rutherford
Analyse des Falles Wyatt gegen Vince, UKSC 14
Hintergrund
The Supreme Court considered this appeal made by Ms Wyatt against her former husband Mr Vince, who is now a multi-millionaire.
Ms Wyatt and Mr Vince met and married in 1981 and had one child together Dane, now aged 31. Mr Vince also treated Ms Wyatt’s daughter Emily from a previous relationship as a child of their family. The parties separated in 1984 and were eventually divorced in 1992. After the divorce Ms Wyatt subsisted on state benefits or when her health allowed, on wages earned during periods of low paid employment. She also went on to have two more children. The three adult children who resided with her could only make modest financial contributions to the running of the house and they were living in a local authority Eigenschaft in Monmouth which had fallen into disrepair.
Im Gegensatz dazu lebte Herr Vince nach der Scheidung einige Jahre als ‘New-Age-Reisender’ und vertiefte sein langjähriges Interesse an grüner Energie. 1996 installierte er seine erste Windkraftanlage und gründete das Unternehmen „Ecotricity Group Ltd“. Dieses Unternehmen versorgt heute mindestens 70.000 Haushalte und Unternehmen in ganz Großbritannien mit Ökostrom und hat einen geschätzten Wert von 57 Millionen Pfund.
Im Jahr 2011 beantragte Frau Wyatt beim Gericht Unterhaltszahlungen von ihrem ehemaligen Ehemann. Sie beantragte eine Pauschalzahlung in Höhe von 1,9 Millionen Pfund sowie Zwischenzahlungen zur Deckung ihrer Anwaltskosten.
Das Gericht stellte fest, dass die ursprüngliche Gerichtsakte aus dem Jahr 1992 verloren gegangen war und dass kein Unterhaltsurteil ergangen war. Ferner wurde festgestellt, dass Frau Wyatt bei schlechter Gesundheit war.
In response Mr Vince applied to have her claim struck out on the basis that her case had no merit, was unreasonable and an abuse of legal process. In contrast to the Civil Procedure Rules, the Family Procedure Rules did not have a provision for summary judgment.
The High Court dismissed Mr Vince’s application and accepted that he had not provided adequate child Unterstützung for his son, or maintenance for Ms Wyatt. On occasion he had given her £200 per month and had provided her with some second hand cars. The High Court awarded Ms Wyatt an interim costs allowance payment of £31,250 per month for four months. Mr Vince then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal who struck out Ms Wyatt’s application and ordered her to repay part of the money received. Ms Wyatt then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, the highest court of England & Wales.
Die rechtlichen Aspekte
On the legal issues and in particular the strike out application on the basis that the application did not have a reasonable prospect of success, the Supreme Court carefully considered the Family Procedure rules against its parent being the Civil Procedure Rules. At paragraph 19 Lord Wilson summarised the position as follows:
“…The family rules came into force on 6 April 2011 and, prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the present case, there was no reported authority on the construction of Rule 4.4. So far as is material, the rule, which does not apply to proceedings in relation to children, provides:
“(1) …das Gericht kann eine Klageschrift streichen, wenn es zu der Auffassung gelangt, dass –
- that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the application;
- ”dass die Klageschrift einen Missbrauch des Gerichtsverfahrens darstellt oder anderweitig geeignet ist, die gerechte Erledigung des Verfahrens zu behindern …“
Bei der Auslegung der Begriffe “keine hinreichenden Gründe” und “Missbrauch des Gerichtsverfahrens” stützte sich das Gericht auf die Verfahrensanweisung 4A, in der es heißt:
“2.1 Nachstehend sind Beispiele für Fälle aufgeführt, in denen das Gericht zu dem Schluss kommen kann, dass ein Antrag unter Regel 4.4(1)(a) fällt –
- those which set out no facts indicating what the application is about;
- solche, die zusammenhanglos sind und keinen Sinn ergeben;
- those which enthalten a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable application against the respondent.
2.2 Ein Antrag kann unter Regel 4.4(1)(b) fallen, wenn er nicht gerechtfertigt ist, beispielsweise weil er leichtfertig, beleidigend oder offensichtlich unbegründet ist.”
The test for striking out a claim under 4.4 was not analogous to the summary judgment test in the civil jurisdiction. Jackson LJ was wrong “in den Begriff des Verfahrensmissbrauchs gemäß Regel 4.4(1)(b) der Familienrechtsordnung einen Antrag auf eine finanzielle Anordnung einzubeziehen, der keine realistischen Erfolgsaussichten hat”. Die Auslassung aus den Verfahrensvorschriften für Familiensachen erfolgte bewusst.
Further the meticulous duty of the family courts pursuant to section 25 (1) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was inconsistent with the concept of summary judgement as it was necessary for the Family Courts in determining the application to have consideration of all of the circumstances including the eight matters of 25 (2) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Der Oberste Gerichtshof stellte fest, dass Regel 4.4(1) der Familienrechtsordnung ohne Bezugnahme auf das Kriterium der realistischen Erfolgsaussichten auszulegen ist, und gab dem Antrag von Frau Wyatt auf Zulassung der Berufung statt
Das Gericht äußerte sich im Übrigen zu einigen vorhersehbaren Schwierigkeiten bei der Anwendung.
Die sachlichen Beobachtungen
The relationship broke down 31 years ago and the marital cohabitation lasted for scarcely more than 2 years. Mr Vince did not begin to create his wealth until 13 years after the marital breakdown and Ms Wyatt made no direct or indirect contribution to the creation of this wealth.
The amount Ms Wyatt is claiming £1.9m is excessive and unlikely to be awarded, but the court recognises that she has raised some valid and significant points. She had made the sole financial contribution to the welfare of the family, specifically her care of Dane for a period of 16 years after the separation and also for Emily from 1984 to 1994 and 1995 to 1997 when she became an adult, continuing in her adulthood.
The Supreme Court ruled that Ms Wyatt should be given the opportunity to argue why Mr Vince should now financially assist her. This does not mean that Ms Wyatt wird receive a substantial settlement, or even that she will receive a settlement at all.
(Please note: This article was originally published on our previous website and is provided for general information purposes only. While it reflects the legal position at the time of writing, the law may have changed since publication. For up-to-date advice tailored to your circumstances, please contact our team.)
