Woman could win cash payout 20 years after divorce

[MKR&*42]

How ****** stupid.

A woman has won a landmark Supreme Court bid to claim cash from her millionaire ex-husband, 20 years after they divorced.
Kathleen Wyatt, 55, first took legal action against Dale Vince, 53, founder of wind-power firm Ecotricity, in 2011.

Mr Vince had previously appealed against his ex-wife on the basis she had lodged the claim too late.

But five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled Ms Wyatt's case should go before the family court.
Delivering the ruling, Lord Wilson said the court must have regard "to the contribution of each party to the welfare of the family, including by looking after the home or caring for the family".

Mr Vince and Ms Wyatt met as students in their early 20s and married in 1981. The pair had a son, Dane, and lived a New Age traveller lifestyle before their divorce, the court heard.
Mr Dale set up his company, Ecotricity, in 1995 after the pair had split. He is now worth an estimated £107m and has an OBE.

Lord Wilson said Ms Wyatt, who lived in Lowestoft, Suffolk, Sunderland and the Forest of Dean, had raised her son through "16 years of real hardship".
Her claim was "legally recognisable" and not an "abuse of process", he said, although the £1.9m payout she had hoped to secure was too high an amount.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-g...shire-31832392

This is completely ridiculous, she shouldn't be allowed to claim for the money simply because he is now incredibly wealthy and she will get more from him than she would have 20 years ago. Absolutely stupid legal decision and I can't see why for the love of God you'd allow this.

[Kardan]

I saw this earlier, it's ridiculous. He earned all of his money after they had split so why should she get a portion of that money?

[GommeInc]

If it is because she looked after their son then it makes some sense, but the details are so sketchy that it wouldn't be surprising there is more than meets the eye to this story. That said, the Supreme Court have only ruled she can actually go to court - she hasn't actually won anything and may not even win in the family courts. Her claim would have to be strong to get anywhere and very few really go this far, especially after a 20 year split.

EDIT: If any of you are at Uni and have access to either Lawtel or Westlaw UK, you can search for the case Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14 for further details. It's actually a bit more complex than the BBC/media is attempting to describe it.

Basically, no financial support from him to his son or his wife. She had to pay for the costs of previous court cases. Lots of striking down and mentions about her contributing to the welfare of the family with no support from him. It seems a bit out of date and will probably be struck down by the Supreme Court or the Family Division of the High Court, but there is some reason behind it.

[The Don]

I saw this earlier, it's ridiculous. He earned all of his money after they had split so why should she get a portion of that money?

Childcare expenses for his son

[Kardan]

Childcare expenses for his son

But surely childcare would be a fixed amount for a child? Just because the son's father is a millionaire, why would that suddenly increase the childcare costs for that child? Obviously these things must be done on a percentage of his income - but that just seems silly.

[The Don]

But surely childcare would be a fixed amount for a child? Just because the son's father is a millionaire, why would that suddenly increase the childcare costs for that child? Obviously these things must be done on a percentage of his income - but that just seems silly.

I was under the impression he hadn't provided financial support towards his child? If he did in fact help pay to support his child then I agree that this is ridiculous. If he didn't provide any financial help then I think she should be entitled to some compensation but nowhere near the amount she is attempting to claim. She should receive half the estimated cost of raising a child and no more.

[FlyingJesus]

But surely childcare would be a fixed amount for a child

Should be. The reality is that it often gets awarded according to what the court thinks the man can afford, so with rich men it often goes well above what a child actually needs and more into what the (obviously jaded) mother wants. The rapper Nas is essentially bankrupt despite his extreme successes because of Kelis' "childcare" claims which she doesn't need in any way because of her own career, and it's a far more common story than it should ever have been allowed to become. The entire idea of alimony past child care is utterly ridiculous

[Kyle]

Regardless of the length of their marriage (2 years is longer than many these days!) and their assets at the time this man shouldn't be allowed to get away with paying nothing towards his child. He had money while the boy was presumably still in his mother's care and should be willing to contribute. And he should certainly pay that 88k court fee too, bloody hell litigation is pricey business.