The ex-wife of a software company tycoon has failed to convince the Court of Appeal that financial aspects of her 'big money' divorce should be re-opened – despite three senior judges agreeing that her ex-husband deserved public condemnation for his deliberate dishonesty.
The woman argued that her former husband had 'cheated' her into signing away her rightful share of the marital assets while she worked to look after their disabled son. It was submitted that the self-made millionaire had not revealed a plan to float his software company on the stock market, which led to her agreeing to give up her claim to an equal share of the business.
When they divorced, the couple disagreed about the value of the company, in which they both owned shares.
The divorce proceedings had ended in compromise, with the ex-wife receiving more of the couple's liquid assets whilst giving up her claim to an equal share of the company. She received £10.4 million in cash and property.
It was argued that she had based her agreement on the value of the shares being no more than £32 million and on her husband's evidence that the company would not be floated on the stock market until about five or seven years later. By then, her right to a share of the sale proceeds would have decreased because only her ex-husband would be working to increase the value of the business during those years.
However, shortly after the agreement was signed, it emerged that the woman's ex-husband had misled her and that he had at the time been in the process of planning an initial public offering (IPO) of the company. The High Court nevertheless upheld the agreement and refused her permission to re-open the matter.
Her challenge to that decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal even though it acknowledged that her ex-husband's conduct had been 'deplorable'. Lady Justice Macur observed, "It is inevitable that…the husband is, and will be, rightly subject to the opprobrium of this and the lower court and law abiding members of the public generally and may be subjected to criminal prosecution, civil contempt proceedings and/or a costs penalty."
The ex-wife's lawyers argued that she should not be held to an agreement which was tainted by her ex-husband's dishonesty. However, observing that the IPO had not as yet gone through, the majority of the Court found that there were good reasons for concluding that the ex-husband's dishonesty had not in fact left her in a worse position financially. The Court also noted that, if divorces had to be re-opened every time a husband or wife lied about their circumstances, the court system 'would grind increasingly slowly'.
For further information on this article or related matters, please contact our family team on 0121 698 2200, or fill in our online enquiry form.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
