Twenty-three years is a long time for most people, but no time at all in divorce law. That is the message sent by the Supreme Court in the case of Kathleen Wyatt versus her ex-husband, and it borders on the absurd.
The former husband in this case is Dale Vince, a wind turbine designer, electric sports car manufacturer, ex-hippy and founder of Ecotricity, Britain’s biggest green energy provider. He is said to be worth £107 million. He and Ms Wyatt were both penniless when they divorced in 1992 after a two-year marriage. On that basis he was not required to pay her maintenance. The Supreme Court, on a technicality, has now allowed his ex-wife to bring a £1.9 million claim against him in the family division of the High Court.
The ruling shines a spotlight on an area of law shot through with confusion and in need of reform. It also defies common sense. Since it comes from the highest court in the land, it establishes a precedent that will revive thousands of old disputes and create thousands of new ones. The only people sure to benefit are the lawyers hired to drag them through the courts.
Mr Vince’s entire fortune was built up years after he and Ms Wyatt went their separate ways. According to court papers, she has only ever worked part time and has relied for much of her income on state benefits. She has made a point of noting that she has travelled to court hearings by bus and has sometimes slept in bus stations as the case has proceeded. Her desire to share in Mr Vince’s wealth is understandable and it is fair to suggest on moral grounds that he might have been more generous to her over the years, not least as the mother of their son. However, to allow her to claim in the courts a share of a fortune that she plainly had no part in building, whether as a wife, mother, business partner or new-age soulmate, is to invite the mockery of the law. In the 21st century people divorce, start afresh and move on all the time. The law should reflect this, not facilitate life-long litigation.
Lord Wilson of Culworth, who issued the ruling, emphasised that it guaranteed Ms Wyatt nothing when the case comes to the family division and suggested that a fair settlement would be worth far less than £1.9 million. Nor is she seeking maintenance; she is after a lump sum. Yet the ruling has huge significance for others. It is based on the fact that the couple did not make “final financial orders” as part of their divorce, and this is true of two thirds of all divorcees in the past five years. The legal path is now clear for them to seek a share of their ex-spouses’ wealth regardless of when or how it was created, with no time limit and no cap. One specialist said yesterday that the implications would be “terrifying” for thousands of divorcees.
Advertisement
This ruling will encourage frivolous and vindictive lawsuits that serve only to clog up the courts. It may also embolden ex-spouses — mainly women — to argue that past marriages committed them to raising a family rather than paid work, and that this path left them “deskilled” and dependent on maintenance payments for life. Judges need the discretion to decide when such arguments have merit, but they are often self-fulfilling and demeaning to those who make them.
The law on divorce should help couples to make a fair, clean break and get on with their separate lives. It is now more likely to do the opposite, and it will fall to parliament to fix it.