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 tegen 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 de onderstaande analyse gaan we nader in op enkele juridische kwesties. Als u in het verleden een echtscheidingsprocedure hebt doorlopen en geen financiële regeling (meestal een “consent order” genoemd) hebt getroffen, is het ten zeerste aan te raden om uw situatie in het licht van deze ontwikkeling opnieuw te bekijken.

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 van Wyatt tegen Vince, UKSC 14

Achtergrond

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 eigendom in Monmouth which had fallen into disrepair.

Daarentegen bracht de heer Vince na de scheiding een paar jaar door als new-age-zwerver en verdiepte hij zich in zijn al lang bestaande interesse in groene energie. In 1996 installeerde hij zijn eerste windturbine en richtte hij het bedrijf ‘Ecotricity Group Ltd’ op. Dit bedrijf levert nu groene stroom in het hele Verenigd Koninkrijk aan minstens 70.000 huishoudens en bedrijven en heeft naar schatting een waarde van 57 miljoen pond.

In 2011 diende mevrouw Wyatt bij de rechtbank een verzoek in om financiële steun van haar ex-man. Ze vroeg om een eenmalige uitkering van 1,9 miljoen pond en tussentijdse betalingen om haar proceskosten te dekken.

De rechtbank stelde vast dat het oorspronkelijke procesdossier uit 1992 verloren was gegaan en dat er geen uitspraak over financiële compensatie was gedaan. Ook werd vastgesteld dat mevrouw Wyatt in slechte gezondheid verkeerde.

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 support 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.

De juridische kwesties

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) …kan de rechtbank een pleitnota doorstrepen indien de rechtbank van oordeel is dat –

1. that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the application;
2. ”dat de memorie van toelichting een misbruik van de rechtsgang inhoudt of anderszins de rechtmatige afhandeling van de procedure dreigt te belemmeren …”

Bij de uitlegging van de begrippen “geen redelijke gronden” en “misbruik van procesrecht” baseerde het Hof zich op Praktijkrichtlijn 4A, waarin het volgende is bepaald:

“2.1 Hieronder volgen enkele voorbeelden van gevallen waarin de rechtbank kan oordelen dat een verzoek onder artikel 4.4, lid 1, onder a), valt –

1. those which set out no facts indicating what the application is about;
2. die onsamenhangend zijn en nergens op slaan;
3. those which bevatten a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable application against the respondent.

2.2 Een verzoek kan onder artikel 4.4, lid 1, onder b), vallen wanneer het niet te rechtvaardigen is, bijvoorbeeld omdat het lichtzinnig, lasterlijk of kennelijk ongegrond is.”

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 “om in het begrip ”misbruik van procesrecht’ in artikel 4.4, lid 1, onder b), van het familierecht een verzoek om een financiële beschikking op te nemen dat geen reële kans van slagen heeft“. Het was een bewuste keuze om dit niet op te nemen in de regels voor familierechtelijke procedures.

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.

Het Hooggerechtshof oordeelde dat artikel 4.4, lid 1, van het familierechtelijk reglement moet worden uitgelegd zonder dat daarbij wordt gekeken naar de toets van de reële kans van slagen, en heeft het verzoek van mevrouw Wyatt om in beroep te gaan toegewezen

Het Hof ging vervolgens in een terloopse opmerking in op enkele te verwachten problemen bij de toepassing ervan.

De feitelijke waarnemingen

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 zal 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.)