The importance of finalizing financial matters with a final order in divorce

Remember the case of Wyatt v Vince [2016] EWHC 1368 (Fam)- which underscored the importance of finalizing financial matters with a final order or risk years of costly litigation and uncertainty?

Kathleen Wyatt and Dale Vince had divorced in 1992, 19 years before Ms. Wyatt filed for financial remedies in 2011. At the time of separation, Mr. Vince led a modest “new-age” lifestyle, protesting against nuclear weapons and living as a traveller. He had no financial resources to support Ms. Wyatt or their two children. By 2011, Mr. Vince had remarried (Kate Vince ) and become a multimillionaire through his green energy business, prompting Ms. Wyatt to file for a lump sum financial order.

Whilst the High Court (2012) dismissed Mr. Vince’s strike-out application and ordered him to pay interim legal costs directly to Ms. Wyatt’s solicitors the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision, struck out Ms. Wyatt’s application, and ordered her to repay part of the interim costs received. The Supreme Court (2015) allowed Ms. Wyatt’s appeal, reinstated her financial claim, and restored the original costs order. By 2016 the parties reached a modest award settlement of £ 300,000 and Cobb J confirmed that the final order settling the proceedings should be made public not only because the lives and financial circumstances of the parties had been trailed extensively in the public domain but also the fact that the parties were in the end able to reach a negotiated settlement without a trial.

Fast forward to Round 2 – Cusworth J’s decision in Vince v Vince [2024] EWFC 389 published on 17th Jan 2025. https://lnkd.in/dzr35cnn This chapter offers critical lessons for family practitioners in cases involving significant business assets. Kate Vince was awarded 50% of the matrimonial element of the value of her husband Dale Vince’s green energy business, recognizing both her homemaking contributions during their 22-year marriage and the need to balance liquidity challenges with fairness.

Key takeaways:
• Business Valuation: 74.16% of the business was deemed matrimonial, reflecting the marriage’s duration compared to the business’s total timeline.
• Pre- and Post-Marital Contributions: Whilst Hs pre/post marital contribution was acknowledged it did not exclude the wife from sharing in the increased business value.
• Donations and Resources: Significant political and charitable donations by H were scrutinized, with unspent funds added back to the valuation but no adjustment or add-back for those spent as they could not be deemed ‘wanton’. No criticism either or add-back in relation to Hs very generous gifting to his older children (unrelated to W)
• Structured Payments: W’s £41.81m award will be paid in tranches with interest, balancing fairness and practicality.

Vince (2) therefore underscores the approach of business valuations and equitable sharing in high-asset divorces.