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 contro 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.
Nell'analisi che segue esaminiamo più nel dettaglio alcune delle questioni giuridiche. Si raccomanda vivamente a chi abbia già affrontato un procedimento di divorzio in passato e non disponga di un accordo economico (solitamente denominato “accordo consensuale”) di riesaminare la propria situazione alla luce di questo sviluppo.
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
Analisi della causa Wyatt contro Vince, UKSC 14
Sfondo
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 proprietà in Monmouth which had fallen into disrepair.
Al contrario, dopo il divorzio, Vince ha trascorso alcuni anni vivendo come un nomade new age e coltivando il suo interesse di lunga data per l'energia verde. Nel 1996 ha installato la sua prima turbina eolica e ha fondato la società ‘Ecotricity Group Ltd’. Questa azienda fornisce ora energia elettrica verde in tutto il Regno Unito ad almeno 70.000 abitazioni e aziende e ha un valore stimato di 57 milioni di sterline.
Nel 2011 la signora Wyatt ha presentato istanza al tribunale per ottenere un sostegno economico dal suo ex marito. Ha chiesto un pagamento forfettario di 1,9 milioni di sterline e versamenti provvisori per coprire le spese legali.
Il tribunale ha riconosciuto che il fascicolo originale del 1992 era andato perduto e che non era stata emessa alcuna ordinanza di risarcimento economico. È stato inoltre riconosciuto che la signora Wyatt versava in cattive condizioni di salute.
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 supporto 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.
Gli aspetti giuridici
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) …il tribunale può stralciare una memoria se ritiene che –
- that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the application;
- ”che la memoria sia un abuso del procedimento giudiziario o sia altrimenti suscettibile di ostacolare il corretto svolgimento del procedimento…»
Nel valutare il significato delle espressioni “nessun motivo ragionevole” e “abuso del procedimento giudiziario”, la Corte si è basata sulla Direttiva procedurale 4A, la quale stabilisce che:
“2.1 Di seguito sono riportati alcuni esempi di casi in cui il tribunale può ritenere che una domanda rientri nell'ambito di applicazione dell'articolo 4.4, paragrafo 1, lettera a) –
- those which set out no facts indicating what the application is about;
- quelle che sono incoerenti e non hanno senso;
- those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable application against the respondent.
2.2 Una domanda può rientrare nell'ambito di applicazione dell'articolo 4.4, paragrafo 1, lettera b), qualora non sia giustificata, ad esempio perché è frivola, diffamatoria o manifestamente infondata.”
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 “includere nel concetto di abuso di procedura di cui all’articolo 4.4, paragrafo 1, lettera b), del regolamento in materia di diritto di famiglia una richiesta di provvedimento economico che non abbia alcuna reale prospettiva di successo”. La sua omissione dalle norme procedurali in materia di diritto di famiglia è stata intenzionale.
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.
La Corte Suprema ha stabilito che la norma 4.4(1) del regolamento in materia di diritto di famiglia deve essere interpretata senza fare riferimento al criterio delle reali prospettive di successo e ha accolto la richiesta di appello presentata dalla sig.ra Wyatt
La Corte ha poi aggiunto, a titolo di osservazione incidentale, alcune considerazioni sulle difficoltà prevedibili legate all'applicazione.
Le osservazioni concrete
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 volontà 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.)
