A woman has won £220,000 in a ground-breaking divorce settlement — 22 years after separating from her husband.
They were married only four years before they split up but they never formally divorced.
The woman, who is in her fifties and lives in West London, was prompted to bring her claim after learning that her husband had secured a windfall by inheriting some money.
The couple met in 1979 and lived together until 1982, marrying that year. They separated in 1986, after the birth of one child. After their separation, the husband, who lives in the Republic of Ireland, inherited £120,000 that he invested in property, selling it in January last year for about £1.1 million.
The woman’s solicitor, Naim Qureshi, a partner with the law firm Healys, which is based in London and Brighton, explained: “The main reason that she did not divorce earlier is because their child was very young, and she did not want all the anguish of a messy divorce at that time. Now, their son is an independent adult.”
Advertisement
Mr Qureshi said that another factor was that the woman’s former husband, who works occasionally as a chef, had come into an inheritance.
“She had borne the brunt, with almost no maintenance, of bringing up their son single-handedly, and felt that she had a potential claim.”
Her lawyers argued that the woman had been financially disadvantaged because of her husband’s lack of emotional or financial support during the marriage and because of his minimal provision for the support of their child after they separated.
The lawyers argued that she needed a fund to provide her with long-term security for housing and pension provision. Mr Qureshi said that the court had agreed with the woman’s claim and awarded her sufficient to house herself, while leaving enough for her former husband to buy another property.
The solicitor said: “She is extremely happy and felt that the court has taken account of her contribution in supporting their son. She does feel a great deal of satisfaction and vindication.”
Advertisement
The woman, who works in a company that produces online educational materials, does not wish to be identified.
Mr Qureshi said that although the inheritance had occurred after the separation, it was the only real asset in the case.
The court had accepted that the woman did have a “need” and ruled that therefore it would have to be met from the inherited asset — the proceeds from the property sale.
“If the need can be met without injustice to the husband, and without preventing him from meeting his own needs, then the court should strive to meet the need of the wife,” Mr Qureshi added.