Forum menu
The thing that is being lost in the headlines is that she has only won the right to bring the action.
She has been told she won't get what she asked for, and may get nothing at all.
I suspect his charity is tempered by the amount of legal action she's already taken attempting to get money from him.
Loaded description saying charity there. It may be moral/legal obligation all be it one he does not wish to live up to. IME divorce is like that.
The thing that is being lost in the headlines is that she has only won the right to bring the action.She has been told she won't get what she asked for, and may get nothing at all.
^^This, absolutely.
It's headlines [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/windturbine-millionaires-ex-wins-divorce-battle-10100096.html ]like this[/url] that demonstrate either journalists don't really have a clue about what they're reporting on, or they aren't reporting on it for the right reasons.
I often can't decide either way.
@JY, just borrowing from the judges comments in CoA case I quoted in http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bonkers-divorce-ruling-maybe/page/2#post-6764581
Backtracks trying to safe face
Fails
😳
No backtracking needed - it was a fair comment not knowing the context of what I wrote (which was buried in a quote in a previous post I wouldn't expect everybody to read)
When I got divorced, solicitors were always on at me to make a full & final settlement. If this bloke or his ex wife had taken legal advice at the time of their divorce 20 years ago they would/should have been advised in a similar fashion.
He really needs to weed his back garden.
[quote=Dickyboy ]When I got divorced, solicitors were always on at me to make a full & final settlement. If this bloke or his ex wife had taken legal advice at the time of their divorce 20 years ago they would/should have been advised in a similar fashion.
One of the points of the argument in CoA is that all records of what happened in divorce proceedings have been lost because it was such a long time ago - and that it was therefore prejudicial to bring the action when such things could not be proved. How long do you need to keep records of divorce proceedings? (the answer of the Supreme Court seems to be "forever").
In what way is this fundamentally different from that?
I can answer that.
She did it on her own. That makes it a million times harder than sharing it with someone else, whether or not they did that on benefits/low income.
I think she should get something. Almost certainly not £1.9m she's asking for but something reasonably material that reflects the fact she brought his child up on her own.
or they aren't reporting on it for the right reasons.I often can't decide either way.
Well that's also easy. It's the latter. Always is.
It's headlines like this that demonstrate either journalists don't really have a clue about what they're reporting on, or they aren't reporting on it for the right reasons.
Its not the headlines- its the misreporting in that link- it basically makes her out to be a complete digger.
'she lived on benefits' (no mention of children at all)
She only laid claim in 2011.
No other background story- nothing at all. It all reads flattering to him.
But then newspapers and the news can't report a mixed story. it has to be black and white so not to confused or bore readers.
[quote=hora ]Its not the headlines- its the misreporting in that link- it basically makes her out to be a complete digger.
...
She only laid claim in 2011.
You think it puts her in a better light if they report all of her legal actions against him (including for example the CSA application when their kids were over 18)?
^ no she made the application for financial remedy in 2011. Not support- remedy.
She also claimed that for his son from the age of 2-18yrs he didn't give her any support.
Maybe she couldn't afford to go after him sooner. Maybe he misled and said he couldn't afford/got to a point where eventually he couldn't conceal his success anymore until one day he thought 'nows the time/its late enough now'?
WHO knows?! none of us have access to the full details. Neither do the press otherwise they'd be printing more than just two paragraphs each.
[quote=hora ]WHO knows?! none of us have access to the full details. Neither do the press otherwise they'd be printing more than just two paragraphs each.
We have access to the CoA judgement, which is what I'm mainly basing my comments on, rather than news reports. The CSA claim was in 2001 and is a completely separate thing - as you point out it's not mentioned in the news reports, but the info is readily available. As are details of her other previous legal actions.
Do your own research 😉
A difficult decision, who do you hate more, ex's or lawyers, at least in this case the lawyers are working for the money.
Just how hard are they working for it, though? 😉
But he started the company THREE years before. I wonder if its a case of hiding assets/etc etc.
As I understand it from BBC news this evening, his business started at Glastonbury Festival, where he set up a mobile phone charge point powered by a windmill, not exactly a major setup, likely to excite the Dragon's Den crowd, especially as he was apparently still living in his traveller van.
I wonder how much she put into the costs of assembling the equipment?
Hippie millionaire ... 😯 I want to be hippie.
Serve him right for dipping his wick. 😆
The long and short of it is he should have agreed financial settlement at the point of his divorce...he is a nob! He obviously didn't have good initial legal advice, pay your money for a good solicitor its worth it in the long run!
[quote=PH1 ]The long and short of it is he should have agreed financial settlement at the point of his divorce...he is a nob! He obviously didn't have good initial legal advice, pay your money for a good solicitor its worth it in the long run!
Have you read the CoA judgement? That would have made no difference as there are no records (oh, and he had no money for a solicitor at that point either).
How long do you need to keep records of divorce proceedings? (the answer of the Supreme Court seems to be "forever")
This is a troubling point, but it's not really that onerous is it? Most of us have half-a-dozen pieces of paper that we manage to keep for decades, in a file marked "DOCUMENTS". The proportion of people who are so utterly shambolic that the bit of paper that ties off financial liability for their failed marriage isn't in that file must be pretty small.
Just out of interest, any STWers who have made it BIG with bitter ex-wives living in council houses?
Just out of interest, any STWers who have made it BIG with bitter ex-wives living in council houses having to bring up the STW'ers kids whilst you pay nothing to their maintenance and the state picks up the bill?
FTFY
You've actually broken it, hora - see CSA rulings on how BIG bloke in question had made it.
Very enlightening reading the posts on here and having read the link to the judgement. It's really clear who read the judgement and who didn't!!
He was on radio cost him £500000 so far as he has to pay her costs and his and the son has lived with him for the last 17 years [ grown up now obviously].
JY - now that is interesting.
My simple brain suggests she is entitled to "normal" maintenance and help with the costs of the child based on his earnings in those specific years that she was caring for the child.
I also think that if I get divorced I'm going for a full and final settlement, just in case I win the lottery later.
Re-read the full ruling. The wife should have pressed her case in the late nineties. Its too retrospective. The fact that all the files relating to the time can't be found/shredded doesn't help his case.
The son now lives and works with him? Yes post the first 18yrs of his life.
[quote=hora ]The wife should have pressed her case in the late nineties.
She made a CSA application then which resulted in a nil assessment - I thought you said you'd read the ruling?
Son is currently 33, and has apparently lived with him for 17 years...
Source for what age he was when he left as I cannot find an age for his son
Says they met in their twenties and married in 1981 and separated mid 80's no date for child
I guess its teenage to adulthood ?
Son born 2nd May 1981, separation probably 1984 - guess where I found that out 😉 Don't have info on when son went to live with husband, it just says "After completing his education Dane went to live with the husband. He has made his career in the husband's business" - was relying on your comment for how long he's lived with dad.
I really should do my own research 😛
Wives are entitled to share of pension in typical settlement
The original case is daft. Settlement final at the time and circumstances changed doesn't mean you can come back for more money like this
People are reading too much into the ruling I think - the judge has more or least implied that he thinks she should only get a token amount if she anything, however he's not ruling on the facts of that case - just on whether a claim could be made. Also sounds like the ex-husband is well rid of her!
[quote=aracer ]Son born 2nd May 1981
Correction: the CoA ruling write up appears to be incorrect. Currently reading the Supreme Court ruling, and that has his birthday as 2nd May 1983 and also suggests he only moved to live with his father when he was 18.
Call me a cynic - but considering the bloke's worth £100 million, has a business empire firmly in the black and the wife is a sharholder/director of some of the companies - I don't think the couple of million quid divorce settlement is going to be of huge issue to him considering the PR he's going to take out of it.
Anybody else not heard of Ecotricitry until this news broke - when the whole go green thing is everywhere? How many customers has it brought onto the books...?
How many customers has it brought onto the books...?
I'm going to wager... erm... probably none.
has a business empire firmly in the black and the wife is a sharholder/director of some of the companies
Wrong wife
I had heard of ecotricity [ as i am a customer and have been for a decade or so] and I doubt the best business model is to be sued by an ex wife.
[quote=lemonysam ]How many customers has it brought onto the books...?
I'm going to wager... erm... probably none.
I'll take you up on that - say the amount of divorce settlement the wife gets (as opposed to how much he has to pay towards her lawyers).