Resolution considers Vince v Wyatt financial claim

Divorce|March 17th 2015

The highly publicised financial claim made by the former wife of a green energy boss shows the need for legal reform, Resolution has claimed.

The organisation, which represents family lawyers, said Vince v Wyatt was “an illustration of the need for reform of the law around divorce finance”.

Last week, the Supreme Court announced that Kathleen Wyatt’s claim against Dale Vince was valid and should return to the family courts. The couple separated in 1984 following the birth of their son Dane, but they did not formally divorce for another eight years. At the time both had little money and lived a New Age traveller lifestyle. However Mr Vince later went on to found wind turbine power company Ecotricity which became highly successful and he is now a multimillionaire.

Ms Wyatt’s financial claim against her ex-husband met with initial success but was later thrown out by the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Thorpe insisted that Mr Vince was not “her insurer against life’s eventualities”.

Ms Wyatt appealed to the Supreme Court where Lord Wilson surprised many by concluding that the Court of Appeal ruling had been in error. The courts did not have the power to reach an immediate decision on financial claims made by spouses, he declared. Instead the merits of each claim must be fully considered.

In a recently published Manifesto for Family Law, Resolution argued for greater certainty in the law surrounding financial provision after divorce.

“If Ms Wyatt had lost her appeal, Resolution was concerned that people without access to legal advice as a result of the legal aid cuts would have been at risk of having their applications struck out without proper consideration simply because of delay, along arbitrary lines.”

However, she added, it was also important to protect people who have acquired wealth from “potentially opportunistic claims” years after the end of a marriage.

There is a need for greater clarity, she insisted, clarity which would help divorcees to achieve financial independence more quickly.

“We are rightly proud of the broad discretion which the family courts have in England and Wales and the ability to tailor outcomes to families.”

However, judicial discretion – the ability to tailor rulings to the circumstances of each case – also fuelled uncertainty over the outcome and encouraged litigation, she declared.

Read the Resolution Manifesto for Family Law here.

Image by Lawrence Murray via Flickr

Author: Stowe Family Law

Comment(1)

  1. Rachel says:

    Having heard Mr Vince on the radio after the absurd ruling, my heart went out to him. How can it be fair that he is liable to give his first wife a few million, when every single penny was earned many years after the divorce and as a result of his sole endeavours. Not only that, but Mr Vince is also having to fund this whole case, including her expensive lawyers. Everything is weighted against him. If Ms Wyatt believes in her case so strongly, she should fund it. This is the second time in a week we have seen rulings that disregard fairness in order to ensure lawyers get paid to take cases all the way to the top.

    This has to stop. This whole case and the judgement by the Supreme Court is entirely based around the best interests of the legal profession and not the best interests of fairness to the parties. It is very clear that Mr Vince should never have been liable for the £500,000 legal fees for the case. The Supreme Court have acted disgracefully.

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