Supreme Court ruling to trigger more 'clean break' divorces

A landmark Supreme Court ruling that a former New Age traveller who has since become a multi millionaire  may have to give financial support to the wife he divorced 23 years ago will trigger more ‘clean-break’ cases – even where there are initially limited funds - a  specialist divorce lawyer says.

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow Kathleen Wyatt to bring a claim for financial support from her former husband Dale Vince, who founded wind turbine business Ecotricity in Stroud, Gloucesterhire in 1995, re-writes the rules for financial settlements in marriage break-ups, says divorce lawyer, William Kaye, Family Law partner at Harrowells.

Ms Wyatt and Mr Vince, who has an OBE, married in 1981, separated three years later and divorced in 1992 but because the pair had lived a ‘New Age Traveller existence’, nothing was formally agreed about the financial implications when they divorced as both had few funds.

Ms Wyatt, who has remained of limited means, applied to the court for financial provision in 2011 but Mr Vince cross-applied to have the claim struck out due to the time lapse. In 2012 the High Court dismissed Mr Vince’s application but he went to the Court of Appeal which allowed his appeal and struck out Ms Wyatt’s application for financial provision.

Ms Wyatt then appealed to the Supreme Court which unanimously agreed to grant her permission to pursue her claim for financial provision.

William Kaye, an accredited specialist member of Resolution for advanced financial provision and international child abduction, says: “The Supreme Court’s decision changes the legal landscape markedly as previously, in general terms, a significant delay in bringing financial claims to the Family Court without explanation is detrimental, and sometimes fatal, to the applicant’s case. 

“Traditionally,  while lawyers have generally advised all clients to secure ‘clean-break’ divorces,  some people, particularly those without any substantive assets at the time of the divorce, have chosen not to do so. However, in the 21st century’s entrepreneurial business culture, peoples’ circumstances can change dramatically, particularly in the 23-year timespan recognised in this case.

“This decision means that doing nothing about financial arrangements within divorce, as was the case with Kathleen Wyatt and Dale Vince, carries significant risks even if, as in their case, there  did not appear to be much to sort out at the time.

“An order regulating the financial arrangements should always be secured if only to secure a clean break irrespective of the financial circumstances of the parties at the time. This judgment means that  delays in addressing the financial issues could be highly disadvantageous, particularly for those with business interests which may flourish, or for those who anticipate an upturn in their financial circumstances, even if this is only that they hope to win the lottery.”