The award, the largest ever made by a British court, followed her refusal to accept his offer of £20m, the tax exile famously described as ‘enough for anybody’ claiming that such a sum would be impossible to spend in a person’s lifetime. According to him the original judgment was ' poor and blatantly discriminatory.'
The previous settlement follows the recent practice of the courts to seek to divide the ‘matrimonial assets’ (those that have arisen during the currency of the marriage, rather than being brought into it by one spouse, or earned since the marriage failed) relatively equally. Mr Charman’s belief is that the family wealth was built up by his efforts (the couple come from modest backgrounds) and that it is therefore fair for him to keep the lion’s share.
The decision will be eagerly awaited, especially by lawyers dealing with the divorces of wealthy couples. However, two other recent cases
involving rich couples would seem to give him little grounds for hope that the settlement will be radically altered.
involving rich couples would seem to give him little grounds for hope that the settlement will be radically altered.
For the general principles applied in dealing with financial settlements on divorce, see 'Divorce and Money'.
