{"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":"maddi-tazminat-neden-tedbiri-elden-birakmayalim-ki","status":"publish","type":"knowledge-base","link":"https:\/\/rfblegal.co.uk\/tr\/bilgi-tabani\/maddi-tazminat-neden-tedbiri-elden-birakmayalim-ki\/","title":{"rendered":"Mali Telafi \u2013 Neden tedbiri elden b\u0131rakmamal\u0131?"},"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\/Vince davas\u0131, 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

A\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki analizde baz\u0131 hukuki konular\u0131 daha ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 olarak ele al\u0131yoruz. Ge\u00e7mi\u015fte bir bo\u015fanma s\u00fcreci ya\u015fam\u0131\u015f ve mali karar\u0131n\u0131z (genellikle \u201ckar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 r\u0131za karar\u0131\u201d olarak adland\u0131r\u0131l\u0131r) bulunmuyorsa, bu geli\u015fme \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda durumunuzu g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irmenizi \u015fiddetle tavsiye ederiz.<\/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

Wyatt v Vince Davas\u0131n\u0131n Analizi (UKSC 14)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Arka plan<\/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 \u00f6zellik<\/a> in Monmouth which had fallen into disrepair<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k, Bay Vince bo\u015fanman\u0131n ard\u0131ndan birka\u00e7 y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131 yeni \u00e7a\u011f gezgini olarak ge\u00e7irmi\u015f ve ye\u015fil enerjiye olan uzun s\u00fcredir devam eden ilgisini geli\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. 1996 y\u0131l\u0131nda ilk r\u00fczgar t\u00fcrbinini kurdu ve \u2018Ecotricity Group Ltd\u2019 \u015firketini kurdu. Bu \u015firket \u015fu anda Birle\u015fik Krall\u0131k genelinde en az 70.000 haneye ve i\u015fletmeye ye\u015fil elektrik sa\u011fl\u0131yor ve de\u011ferinin 57 milyon sterlin oldu\u011fu tahmin ediliyor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2011 y\u0131l\u0131nda Bayan Wyatt, eski kocas\u0131ndan maddi yard\u0131m almak \u00fczere mahkemeye ba\u015fvurdu. 1,9 milyon sterlinlik toplu \u00f6deme ve dava masraflar\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamak \u00fczere ara \u00f6demeler talep etti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mahkeme, 1992 tarihli orijinal dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n kayboldu\u011fu ve maddi tazminat karar\u0131 verilmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131n\u0131 kabul etti. Ayr\u0131ca, Bayan Wyatt\u2019\u0131n sa\u011fl\u0131k durumunun k\u00f6t\u00fc oldu\u011fu da kabul edildi.<\/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 destek<\/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

Hukuki Konular<\/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) \u2026mahkeme, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki durumlarda dava dilek\u00e7esini reddedebilir \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. \u201ddava dilek\u00e7esinin mahkeme usul\u00fcn\u00fc suistimal etti\u011fi veya ba\u015fka bir \u015fekilde davan\u0131n adil bir \u015fekilde sonu\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 engelleme ihtimali bulundu\u011fu\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Mahkeme, \u201cmakul gerek\u00e7enin bulunmamas\u0131\u201d ve \u201cmahkeme s\u00fcrecinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131\u201d ifadelerinin yorumlanmas\u0131nda, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki h\u00fckm\u00fc i\u00e7eren Uygulama Talimat\u0131 4A\u2019ya dayanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201c2.1 A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da, mahkemenin bir ba\u015fvurunun 4.4(1)(a) numaral\u0131 kural\u0131n kapsam\u0131na girdi\u011fine karar verebilece\u011fi durumlara ili\u015fkin \u00f6rnekler yer almaktad\u0131r \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. tutars\u0131z ve anlams\u0131z olanlar;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. those which i\u00e7erir<\/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 Bir ba\u015fvuru, \u00f6rne\u011fin anlams\u0131z, hakaret i\u00e7eren veya a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a temelsiz olmas\u0131 gibi nedenlerle gerek\u00e7elendirilemedi\u011fi durumlarda, Kural 4.4(1)(b) kapsam\u0131na girebilir.\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 \u201cAile Hukuku Kurallar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 4.4(1)(b) maddesinde yer alan \u201dhukuk yolunun k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131\u2019 kavram\u0131na, ba\u015far\u0131 \u015fans\u0131 bulunmayan bir mali karar talebini dahil etmek\u201d<\/em>. Aile davalar\u0131 usul kurallar\u0131nda yer almamas\u0131 kas\u0131tl\u0131d\u0131r.<\/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

      Yarg\u0131tay, Aile Hukuku Kurallar\u0131\u2019n\u0131n 4.4(1) numaral\u0131 maddesinin \u201cger\u00e7ek ba\u015far\u0131 ihtimali\u201d kriterine at\u0131fta bulunulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine h\u00fckmetti ve Bayan Wyatt\u2019\u0131n temyiz ba\u015fvurusunu kabul etti<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Mahkeme, karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde, uygulaman\u0131n getirece\u011fi baz\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir zorluklara da de\u011findi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Ger\u00e7eklere dayal\u0131 g\u00f6zlemler<\/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 will<\/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