The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision which would otherwise have allowed a wife to re-open a divorce settlement made in 1978.
Dennis North divorced his wife nearly 30 years ago. He gave a house and the income from some properties he owned. She was able to build up a fund of investments but later lost much of her capital as a result, she said, of poor financial advice.
She hoped to have what her former husband called “a second bite at the cherry”. The High Court judge found that her difficulties were “entirely of her own making” but nevertheless awarded more than £200,000 against her former husband.
The Court of Appeal found this to be wrong. Lord Justice Thorpe said “Even the applicant’s subjective sense of fairness should surely not encourage her to expect that someone from whom she was divorced so many years ago should be required in law to compensate her for the financial consequences of ill-advised choices.”
The Court of Appeal has left open the possibility that the wife may yet get “some modest award” from her former husband.
We have seen one newspaper refer to this as “a rare court victory for a husband”, which somehow implies that husbands “lose” as a matter of course. If this is so statistically, it is because a high proportion of contested divorces involve a wife who is left with the children claiming a bigger share of the assets or larger periodical payments from her husband. We suspect it is thought of as rare because the divorces which get public attention are those where a lot of money is involved which the husband seeks to protect.
These cases, like 30 year-old second bites at the cherry, are not the norm. As Lord Justice Thorpe said in this case, it is the court’s “over-arching objective” to be fair to both sides, and each case is decided on its own facts.
There are several articles on the financial aspects of divorce on our web site. If you would like to talk about any matrimonial or family matter, please contact Lisa Bolgar Smith on 020 7242 7000.
