Court dismisses financial claim made twenty years after divorce

Financial remedy claims can be made at any time after the commencement of divorce proceedings, so long as they haven’t been dismissed by the court, and the claimant hasn’t remarried. This means that, in theory at least, claims can be made many years after the divorce takes place.

And in a recent case a wife made a claim against her former husband, more than twenty years after they were divorced.

The claim was made despite the fact that, at the time of the divorce, the parties had agreed a financial settlement, whereby they divided their (then relatively modest) assets equally. But the settlement had never been finalised by being put into a court order – if it had, then the court would have dismissed all future claims, and that would have been the end of the matter.

The wife argued that she should not be bound by the agreement because she maintained that, at the time, the husband had failed to make full disclosure of his means, and had unduly pressured her into entering into the agreement.

And the wife’s claim was not insignificant. She originally sought the sum of £10 million, although this was later reduced to £2.63 million.

The wife’s position at the time of making her claim was that she had a good income, but little capital, living in rented accommodation. She therefore sought a lump sum from the husband, primarily to enable her to purchase a home for herself.

The husband’s position was quite different. He had remarried, and was a successful and wealthy businessman, with assets exceeding £100 million, all accrued after the parties separated.

The husband opposed the wife’s claim, arguing that he should not make any payment to the wife, and that there should simply be a ‘clean break’ between the parties.

The judge found that the agreement had not been vitiated by non-disclosure, or reduced in relevance by undue pressure. The parties had freely entered into it, understanding its implications. They implemented it. The agreement was appropriate and fair as at that time, and likely to have been the sort of order made by any court. Accordingly, the judge was not persuaded that there was any good reason not to hold the parties to the agreement.

Further to that, it was inherently unfair on the husband to be subject to a claim twenty years after a full and final settlement was entered into, which both parties intended and believed was binding. There was also no causal link between the wife’s needs now and the relationship which ended so long ago.

In the circumstances the judge did not make any order in favour of the wife, instead simply dismissing all claims.

You can read the full report of the case here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: siro46 / Shutterstock.com