The green energy tycoon at the centre of a landmark divorce battle has accused his former wife of “cashing in a very old lottery ticket” for suing for maintenance three decades after they split.
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Kathleen Wyatt could continue with a £1.9 million claim from Dale Vince, the founder of Ecotricity, even though they parted in the mid-1980s when both were still impoverished New Age travellers.
Today a disgruntled Mr Vince – who founded his multi-million-pound wind turbine business in 1995, three years after the divorce – complained that the law was “absurd” and called for a statute of limitations.
He revealed that his wife had already run up more than £500,000 legal costs employing the firm Mishcon de Reya – whose bills he was legally obliged to pick up.
Speaking about the case today, Mr Dale said he was “frustrated” that the courts were allowing Ms Wyatt’s case to go ahead.
Advertisement
“I still think that the principle is very important, it is incredibly wrong,” he said.
“Our relationship ended 32 years ago which is an incredible passing of time.
“We had a settlement 20 years ago but I cannot prove that because it was so long ago that not even the courts keep records. So the passing of time itself has allowed this claim to be brought.”
Mr Vince told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the Supreme Court only heard “one side” of the story about who cared for the couple’s son, because the judges had only been asked to consider whether in principle she might have a valid claim.
He denied that he had failed to support his wife and son.
Advertisement
“There were a lot of cars, there were a lot of washing machines,” he said.
“We both did what we could at the time. It was a very long time ago.
“The son in question has been living and working with me for most of the last 17 years so I’m still taking care of him in a way – he is a grown man, but in a way.
“I think it is very wrong just to cash in what is in effect a very old lottery ticket on her part.”
Ms Wyatt now owned her own home and was not living in poverty, he said.
Advertisement
Mr Vince, who has remarried and lives with his second wife in a Georgian fort, refused to say what his son thought of the case.
He insisted he would continue to oppose his ex-wife’s claim, and predicted that when it came to trial she would get short shrift.
He said under divorce rules, he was footing the legal bill for both sides.
“I am actually paying her costs to take this to court, which is a very big sum of money,” Mr Dale said.
“In this case 20 years after we divorced, 30 years after we split up I am having to pay her costs to get this to court. Which is bizarre. It is over half a million pounds so far.”
Advertisement
He called for the law to be changed to prevent such old cases being dusted down by former spouses.
“There clearly needs to be a statute of limitations for divorce cases – a time limit beyond which a claim cannot be made. Such a thing exists in commercial law for good practical reasons. It’s six years, which is plenty long enough to bring a claim,” he said.
“Divorce law needs to catch up. The current situation is absurd.”