{"id":9645,"date":"2026-06-02T12:06:37","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T12:06:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rfblegal.co.uk\/?post_type=knowledge-base&p=9645"},"modified":"2026-06-02T12:06:39","modified_gmt":"2026-06-02T12:06:39","slug":"mesures-financieres-pourquoi-ne-pas-faire-fi-de-toute-prudence","status":"publish","type":"knowledge-base","link":"https:\/\/rfblegal.co.uk\/fr\/base-de-connaissances\/mesures-financieres-pourquoi-ne-pas-faire-fi-de-toute-prudence\/","title":{"rendered":"Indemnisation financi\u00e8re \u2013 Pourquoi ne pas faire fi de toute prudence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Our Family law solicitors based in our London<\/a> City and West End explore the implications for financial arrangements arising out of divorce<\/a> proceedings following the Supreme Court decision in Wyatt c. Vince, 2015 UKSC 14.<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> while Ms Wyatt and the children endured a life<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> of putting in place legally binding<\/a> 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<\/a> in later life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nous examinons plus en d\u00e9tail certaines de ces questions juridiques dans l'analyse ci-dessous. Si vous avez d\u00e9j\u00e0 v\u00e9cu un divorce et que vous ne disposez pas d'une ordonnance financi\u00e8re (g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement appel\u00e9e \u201c ordonnance par consentement \u201d), il est vivement recommand\u00e9 de r\u00e9examiner votre situation \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re de cette \u00e9volution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> on 020 7613 1402 and ask to speak to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rachel Duke
Daniel Martinez
Melissa Rutherford<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analyse de l'affaire Wyatt c. Vince (UKSC 14)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Contexte<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court considered this appeal<\/a> made by Ms Wyatt against her former husband Mr Vince, who is now a multi-millionaire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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<\/a> employment<\/a>. 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 propri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/a> in Monmouth which had fallen into disrepair<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

En revanche, apr\u00e8s son divorce, M. Vince a pass\u00e9 quelques ann\u00e9es \u00e0 mener une vie de nomade \u2018 new age \u2019 et \u00e0 approfondir son int\u00e9r\u00eat de longue date pour les \u00e9nergies vertes. En 1996, il a install\u00e9 sa premi\u00e8re \u00e9olienne et a fond\u00e9 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00ab Ecotricity Group Ltd \u00bb. Cette entreprise fournit aujourd\u2019hui de l\u2019\u00e9lectricit\u00e9 verte \u00e0 au moins 70 000 foyers et entreprises \u00e0 travers le Royaume-Uni et sa valeur est estim\u00e9e \u00e0 57 millions de livres sterling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

En 2011, Mme Wyatt a saisi le tribunal pour obtenir une aide financi\u00e8re de la part de son ex-mari. Elle a demand\u00e9 le versement d'une somme forfaitaire de 1,9 million de livres sterling ainsi que des versements provisoires destin\u00e9s \u00e0 couvrir ses frais de justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le tribunal a reconnu que le dossier judiciaire original datant de 1992 avait \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9gar\u00e9 et qu'aucune d\u00e9cision relative \u00e0 une compensation financi\u00e8re n'avait \u00e9t\u00e9 rendue. Il a \u00e9galement \u00e9t\u00e9 reconnu que Mme Wyatt \u00e9tait en mauvaise sant\u00e9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> Procedure Rules, the Family Procedure Rules did not have a provision for summary<\/a> judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court dismissed Mr Vince\u2019s application and accepted that he had not provided adequate child assistance<\/a> for his son, or maintenance for Ms Wyatt. On occasion he had given her \u00a3200 per month and had provided her with some second hand cars. The High Court awarded Ms Wyatt an interim costs allowance payment of \u00a331,250 per month for four months. Mr Vince then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal who struck out Ms Wyatt\u2019s 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<\/a> & Wales.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Les questions juridiques<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>, 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c\u2026The family rules came into force on 6 April<\/a> 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:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c (1) \u2026 le tribunal peut radier un m\u00e9moire si, \u00e0 son avis \u2013<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing<\/a> or defending the application;<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. \u201d [\u2026] que la requ\u00eate constitue un abus de proc\u00e9dure ou est susceptible, d\u2019une autre mani\u00e8re, d\u2019entraver le bon d\u00e9roulement de la proc\u00e9dure [\u2026] \u00bb<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Pour interpr\u00e9ter les expressions \u201c absence de motifs raisonnables \u201d et \u201c abus de proc\u00e9dure \u201d, la Cour s\u2019est fond\u00e9e sur la directive pratique 4A, qui dispose que :<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201c 2.1 Voici quelques exemples de cas dans lesquels le tribunal peut conclure qu\u2019une demande rel\u00e8ve de la r\u00e8gle 4.4(1)(a) \u2013<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the application is about<\/a>;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. celles qui sont incoh\u00e9rentes et n'ont aucun sens ;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. those which contenir<\/a> a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable application against the respondent.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      2.2 Une requ\u00eate peut relever de la r\u00e8gle 4.4(1)(b) lorsqu\u2019elle ne peut \u00eatre justifi\u00e9e, par exemple parce qu\u2019elle est frivole, diffamatoire ou manifestement d\u00e9pourvue de fondement.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The test for striking out a claim under 4.4 was not analogous to the summary judgment test in the civil jurisdiction<\/a>. Jackson LJ was wrong \u201c faire entrer dans la notion d\u2019abus de proc\u00e9dure vis\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019article 4.4(1)(b) du r\u00e8glement sur les affaires familiales une demande d\u2019ordonnance financi\u00e8re qui n\u2019a aucune chance r\u00e9elle d\u2019aboutir \u201d<\/em>. Son absence des r\u00e8gles de proc\u00e9dure en mati\u00e8re familiale \u00e9tait d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      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<\/a> of all of the circumstances including the eight matters of 25 (2) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      La Cour supr\u00eame a estim\u00e9 que la r\u00e8gle 4.4(1) du r\u00e8glement en mati\u00e8re familiale devait \u00eatre interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e sans tenir compte du crit\u00e8re des \u00ab chances r\u00e9elles de succ\u00e8s \u00bb et a fait droit \u00e0 la demande d'appel de Mme Wyatt<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      La Cour a ensuite formul\u00e9, \u00e0 titre accessoire, des observations sur certaines difficult\u00e9s pr\u00e9visibles li\u00e9es \u00e0 l'application de cette disposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Les observations factuelles<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      The relationship broke down 31 years ago and the marital cohabitation<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The amount Ms Wyatt is claiming \u00a31.9m 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<\/a> and also for Emily from 1984 to 1994 and 1995 to 1997 when she became an adult, continuing in her adulthood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      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 va<\/a> receive a substantial settlement<\/a>, or even that she will receive a settlement at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      (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<\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9645","knowledge-base","type-knowledge-base","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t