www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11463632/Delayed-divorce-battle-Ecotricity-founder-Dale-Vinces-New-Age-traveller-ex-wife-wins-payout.html
Delayed divorce battle: Ecotricity founder Dale Vince's New Age traveller ex-wife wins cash fight
Kathleen Wyatt wins right to take her former husband, wind farm entreprener Dale Vince, to court despite not lodging a claim until nearly 20 years after their divorce
|
|
|
|
|
|
6:30PM GMT 11 Mar 2015
The ex-wife of a former new-age traveller who later became multi-millionaire wind farm entrepreneur has been told she can bring a claim for financial support from his fortune more than 30 years after their marriage broke down.
Dale Vince, owner of the green energy provider Ecotricity, described the Supreme Court ruling as “mad” and said it would leave people “looking over our shoulders” for decades in case a former partner came after them for a share of money they made later in life.
Divorce lawyers described the ruling in favour of Kathleen Wyatt as “unprecedented” and said it meant spouses could keep their options open “indefinitely” before staking a claim.
But while some said it could “open the floodgates” to “many thousands” of divorces in which financial orders were never finalised being revisited, others said the “extraordinary circumstances” of the case meant it would have only limited implications.
Dale Vince has made a fortune from his company Ecotricity
Issuing the judgment, Lord Wilson, sitting with four other Supreme Court Justices, emphasised, crucially, that there is no time limit in law for spouses to make a claim for financial provision.
But he said Ms Wyatt’s case claim, which will now be heard by the Family Court, faces “formidable difficulties” because of her delay in making a claim and the fact that she played no part in his later success.
The court heard how the pair lived together as a couple for just over two years. They met in 1981 when Mr Vince was 19 while Ms Wyatt, who was two years older, already had a daughter, Emily, who is now 36.
They married that December and had a baby boy, Dane, in May 1983. But Mr Vince moved out the following year – although Ms Wyatt insists they did not finally separate until some years later.
He then embarked on eight years of travelling, first in old ambulance-turned-camper van, later switching to a converted fire engine, in which he drove to Spain, where he lived for a year with a new partner.
Ms Wyatt went on to have to more children with another man, living what the judgment describes as a “hand to mouth” existence on benefits and some earnings from low-paid jobs.
Mr Vince takes part in the Brighton to London Future Car Challenge
During the subsequent years they met up at Stonehenge, Glastonbury and elsewhere but eventually divorced in 1992. He was not required to pay maintenance because it was agreed he had no money.
But his experience of rigging up an old pylon into a wind-powered telephone at the Glastonbury Festival shortly afterwards paved the way for founding, in 1996 of his wind energy firm. It is now worth an estimated £57 million.
It was not until 2011 that Ms Wyatt lodged a claim for financial support, arguing that he had failed to provide for their son, and her daughter, whom he had effectively accepted into the family.
Although initially given the go-ahead, the claim was blocked by the Court of Appeal which found it had “no real prospect of success” and was an “abuse of process”.
• Dale Vince: the wind farm tycoon
But the Supreme Court overturned that decision, noting a requirement under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to have regard to contributions from each of the parties “to the welfare of the family”, including caring for children, even after a separation.
Lord Wilson said the application had a “real prospect” of “comparatively modest success” and dismissed Ms Wyatt’s claim for a £1.9 million payout as “out of the question”.
Ms Wyatt, 55, said "It's an important judgment."
But Mr Vince, 53, said: "I feel that we all have a right to move on and not be looking over our shoulders. This could signal open season for people who had brief relationships a quarter of a century ago ... it's mad in my opinion."
Mei-Ling McNab, a partner at Brachers says: “This landmark case could open the floodgates for individuals whose former spouses embark on a rags to riches story.”
James Brown, at JMW Solicitors said that he expected "many thousands" of individuals to explore the possibility of also making financial claims against their former partners as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Mrs Wyatt's favour.
"The case underlines how there is no limit on when someone can make a claim,” he said.
"It doesn't matter whether you divorce in your twenties and return with a claim when you're 80."
Catherine Thomas, at Vardag’s, said: “I expect a number of similar cases to emerge now the court has ruled that - in effect - a claimant can keep their options open indefinitely.”
But Michael Gouriet, a partner at Withers said: "The extraordinary circumstances of this case make it an extremely rare beast and, as such, it will not open the floodgates on historic claims being reopened and appealed.”
And Julian Ribet at LMP said: “This decision does not mean that all ex-spouses can reopen their financial settlements to have a second bite at the cherry to obtain more.
“It illustrates the importance of obtaining proper legal advice and ensuring that at the time of the divorce the parties obtain a binding court order dealing with the division of their assets.”
