Family Law

When a couple divorce and financial arrangements have to be sorted out, there are occasions when the court may decide that assets not owned by the divorcing couple should be taken into account.

Going abroad on holiday or to live is becoming a common occurrence for many children. Parents may be offered positions abroad, either for a specific time or with endless possibilities of a permanent move. Likewise, Grandparents may have chosen to move to a warm climate with a more relaxed way of life and promises of frequent long holidays for their family.

Although these changes can be viewed with a mixture of excitement and fear, if both parents agree, then their children can explore new vistas. 

Divorce is almost never easy and the financial negotiations can be protracted and difficult, particularly when there are business interests involved. In this article we consider some of the issues surrounding divorce for company directors. In the first section, we deal with directors who are, effectively, senior employees of the companies of which they are directors. We refer to them as ‘employee directors’.

Around 14 million people in the UK regularly use social networking sites. It seems an innocent enough past time and a way of keeping in touch with friends and acquaintances, near and far. However, a recent survey of divorce petitions found that 1 in 5 contained references to Facebook or similar sites.

So whilst such sites help you stay connected with your friends they also offer the temptation to search for old flames or that special person you once had a crush on. What potentially starts off as a bit of harmless fun and intrigue can soon turn in to something more serious.

We all have choices in life. We choose whether to marry or live with another person. We choose where to live even if there are constraints placed upon us as to what we can afford. We choose to make compromises in our relationships, in our décor style and as to what our money is spent upon. We choose our children’s names and all our lives have an impact upon those children who like a sponge absorb all that they see, hear and are encouraged to do. There are however times in our lives when some choices are taken from us, such as death, illness, redundancy and divorce.

A recent, bitterly contested ‘big money’ divorce case shows how reluctant the courts are to upset financial settlements on the basis of contingencies and reinforces the point that bad behaviour is not a basis for changing the division of the assets.

It involved, as do so many high profile cases, a man who was successful in the City and his wife. The couple had lived together for five years before they married in 2003, but the marriage broke down in 2005. The couple had one child.

The recent case in which the Court of Appeal ruled that a German heiress was able to rely on a pre-nuptial agreement made with her husband was widely reported as meaning that the traditional view of the courts, that ‘pre-nups’ are little more than persuasive, was shattered.

However, the circumstances of that case were somewhat unusual and the comments of LJ Thorpe, the judge who issued the leading opinion, make interesting reading.

A Court of Appeal decision over a divorced couple's pre-nuptial agreement could pave the way for such agreements to become legally binding in England and Wales.

In a case heard before the Court of Appeal in April 2009 involving Katrin Radmacher, a German heiress, the Court of Appeal has overturned an earlier court decision to award her ex-husband £5.8m of her £100m fortune despite their pre nuptial agreement.

A case currently being heard in the Court of Appeal could affect the financial arrangements of many divorced couples.

Financial settlements on divorce normally involve making financial provision for any children but, in a recent case, the ex-wife of a wealthy man successfully argued that her love of horses was sufficiently important to her that substantial maintenance should be payable for their upkeep.