Woman loses claim for maintenance 20 years after divorce

Divorce|Family Law|May 8th 2013

Many a man battling maintenance claims from  former wives will cheer at a Court of Appeal ruling released today.

A former aid worker who attempted to claim maintenance from the now wealthy husband she divorced more than twenty years ago has lost her case. In an unanimous ruling, the judges said her claim for financial and housing support was “an abuse of the court’s process”.

Kathleen Wyatt married Dale Vince, now 51, in December 1981 and they had a son together before splitting in February 1984. At the time, both partners were receiving state benefits. They were eventually officially divorced in October 1992. Both had children in other relationships and Vince also spent time as a  New Age traveller.

In 1995  Mr Vince founded  Ecotricity, a highly successful supplier of wind energy based in Gloucestershire which is now thought to be worth at least £90 million. The firm enjoyed a turnover of more than £44 million in the year to 2011, supplying green power to around 70,000 customers.

Ms Wyatt, a former aid worker, launched a ‘financial remedy’ claim against Mr Vince in 2010, 18 years after the divorce. He countered by applying to have her claim struck out, under the Family Procedure Rules, but this was rejected by the High Court. The latter also ordered the entrepreneur to pay his former wife a ‘fighting fund’ of £125,000 to allow her to pursue the claim.

The green business magnate appealed  and the Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in his favour. Lord Justices Thorpe, Jackson and Tomlinson said the case should never have been brought. Both were in  new relationships when Ms Wyatt should have brought her claim and Mr Vince’s wealth was generated years after the end of their marriage.

Lord Justice Thorpe was, as ever, forthright in this conclusions:

“The facts of this case are extreme. Impecuniosity has been the experience of all of the wife’s adult life. Both the men with whom she has entered into family life were seemingly equally impecunious. Her husband was the most improbable candidate for affluence. The wife no doubt can appeal to his sense of charity but in my judgment he is not to be compelled to boost the wife’s income by the exercise of the jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. He is not her insurer against life’s eventualities.”

Lord Justice Jackson added that:

“… the court should not allow either party to a former marriage to be harassed by claims for financial relief which (a) are issued many years after the divorce and (b) have no real prospect of success.”

The judges also declared that Mr Vince should not be required to fund his wife’s claim, saying this was, in Lord Justice Jackson’s words, “not an outcome which the court can contemplate with equanimity, however wealthy the husband may be.”

I have spent many years as a family solicitor fighting to ensure that my clients receive fair settlements at the end of their marriages. Marriage is a partnership in English law –  a two way endeavour – and it is entirely right that the very real contributions in time and support  made by the less financially successful partner should be fully recognised in a fair divorce settlement. But the key word here is ‘fair’.

If Ms Wyatt had still been married to Mr Vince when Ecotricity was founded and developed, she would have been entitled to a substantial settlement because she would have made a contribution to its success. But the pair had been separated for more than a decade by that point.

As Lord Justice Thorpe rightly points out, the wealthier partner in a marriage – however wealthy they may be – should not be thought of as a lifetime insurance policy. Or a living, breathing savings plan. Or a cash machine.

I think this is an important ruling, one which will be quoted by other judges in years to come. But Lord Justice Jackson was also at pains to point out that applications to strike out such claims would:

“…only succeed in rare and exceptional cases. The case before this court falls into that category. Under no circumstances should parties start making applications to strike out, merely on the grounds that the other side’s case is weak or unlikely to succeed. The court will take a very dim view of any such conduct…”

You have been warned!

Share This Post...


  1. John says:

    Lord Justice Jackson ” the key word is fair “.

    Is it fair that the government introduce statute laws to raise the age of a child to 20, for the payment of Child benefit and recover that payment via maintenance? That is ridiculous a 20 year old child!

    Perhaps in the near future the Judiciary will look at the ‘not fit for purpose’, ‘shambolic’ Child maintenance system we have now and rule that ‘unfair’!

  2. JamesB says:

    That can’t be true John. Has there been a law change in this space? I didn’t hear about it. I thought maintenance was liable until child leaves secondary education or 19th birthday whichever is the latest via the CSA / CMEC / NRP police / CMS / whatever they call themselves these days. Marilyn, please can you advise on this?

  3. John says:

    James B.

    I discovered this article on the internet.

    A constituent whose daughter is nearly 19 pays child maintenance on the ‘old rules’ scheme. He has been advised that due to recent changes he is liable to pay maintenance until she is 20, owing to a recent change in the rules.

    The consultation document on the draft child maintenance regulations that introduce the new ‘gross income’ scheme (since passed as the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012) provides the following on the definition of a qualifying child to be used under the new regulations:
    95. The definition of child applies to all children in the scheme: a qualifying child, a relevant other child, a child supported under a family-based arrangement and a non-resident parent who is a child.
    96. The definition of child should be the same as used by Child Benefit for those aged up to their 20th birthday. The [Child Maintenance and Other Payments] 2008 Act provided an increase in the age limit of a child from 19 to 20, mirroring a Child Benefit change made in 2006.

    I believe that the new rules only apply for certain non advanced educational courses.

    Perhaps this should be verified.

    I am nearing final payments for a 19 yr old, and have been informed that I may have to pay until 20, given certain educational circumstances and payment of Child Benefit.

    A child at 20. That is ridiculous and should be challenged in the courts.

  4. JamesB says:

    I am not sure on the gross income component you mention. I thought it was still net and not changing to gross. I also thought charging wasn’t coming in yet.

    I am surprised at how the main parties seem to disregard the votes of non resident parents. There are so many of us that are or have been nrps and treated apaulingly by the government. On this and contact. Yet they still fumble around messing everything up.

    The 1989 children act (contact) and the 1993 child support act should both be repealled as a starting point and the matter go back to court with pre nups, then we might get some fairness.

  5. Lukey says:

    How did the High Court manage to agree that she had a viable case and order him to pay her 125k to fight him in court ?

    Whoever made that judgement should be told that they will be forcibly removed from office with immediate effect as they are too stupid and lacking in common sense to be fit for the job.

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy