Maintenance claim against Ecotricity founder heads to the Supreme Court

Divorce|News | 7 Feb 2014 4

A maintenance claim against the founder of green energy supplier Ecotricity is to be heard by the Supreme Court later this year.

In Vince v Wyatt, Kathleen Wyatt had made a financial remedy (maintenance) claim against former husband Dale Vince in 2011, 19 years after the pair divorced and three years before Mr Vince, by then living in Stroud, Gloucestershire, founded Ecotricity. It is now thought to be worth at least £90 million.

Mr Vince unsuccessfully applied to the High Court have his wife’s claim struck out, under the Family Procedure Rules. He was also ordered to pay his former wife £125,000 to help pay her legal costs while she pursued her claims against him. Ms Wyatt’s solicitors were operating under a Sears Tooth agreement.

But the green energy pioneer had more luck at the Court of Appeal, where  Lord Justices Thorpe, Jackson and Tomlinson ruled unanimously in his favour. Lord Justice Jackson said: “It must be an abuse of the court’s process to bring such proceedings.”

His now retired colleague Lord Justice Thorpe  said the case was “extraordinary”, adding:

“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.”

The Court of Appeal also ruled that Mr Vince should not have been ordered to fund his wife’s legal costs.

The wife’s appeal against this ruling will be heard by the Supreme Court later this year, most likely in December. The points raised in the appeal include whether or not a financial remedy claim can be struck out without a full court hearing and the legal status of money paid to fund the other party’s legal costs.

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. Guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Share This Post...

Get in touch
Request Free Call Back

Submit your details below, and we’ll arrange a free, no-obligation call back at a time to suit you. To ensure we are the right fit for you we need to make you aware that we are unable to offer Legal aid.

Comments(4)

  1. Andrew says:

    The grant of PTA is an outrage.

  2. Tristan says:

    It’s amazing how a Sears Tooth agreement is more binding than a UK pre-nup which judges reserve the right to set aside if a woman is unhappy with her predetermined divorce settlement.

    Legal profession looking after No 1, as usual.

    • Marilyn Stowe says:

      Dear Tristan
      If you read the CA judgement you will see how hopeless the CA felt the woman’s claim was and threw it out before hearing it. They also ordered the repayment of her legal funding. She has now appealed to the Supreme Court so let’s see what if anything they make of it.
      Regards
      Marilyn

  3. Andrew says:

    And if she loses the ex-h will be out of pocket for the costs.

    Before 1999 the HL required security for costs from every private-sector unassisted appellant, and that’s how it should have stayed, and that’s how it should be. By insurance for the costs as assessed if not agreed.

Leave a Reply

Close

Newsletter Sign Up

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



Privacy Policy