‘Grotesque’ Payment Still Stands; Stay Away From Divorce If You Want to Keep Cash – Expert

By Stephen Howard

Insurance king John Charman yesterday failed to stop his former wife receiving pounds 48 million – the biggest divorce payment in British legal history.

Mr Charman, 54, had challenged the sum awarded by a High Court judge, saying his wife Beverley’s share in his fortune was "grotesque and unfair".

The Court of Appeal threw out his claim, but called for a Law Commission inquiry into the system that had made London the "divorce capital of the world for aspiring wives".

Mr Charman, head of Axis Capital Holdings, claimed his massive contribution to the family fortune – neither of the partners started off with any wealth – meant he should receive a larger slice of the total assets, which were assessed at pounds 131 million. But Sir Mark Potter, president of the High Court Family Division, giving the appeal ruling, said Mr Charman’s special contribution had been taken into consideration when the award was made.

He said: "Neither in its method nor in its result do we regard the judge’s treatment of the husband’s special contribution as vulnerable to appeal."

Mr Charman had argued that his pounds 20 million offer was more than adequate and a pounds 70 million family trust should not have been taken into account when the total assets of the marriage were assessed.

But the appeal court agreed with an earlier ruling that the trust fund was controlled by him. Mr Charman had described his 54-year- old former partner, who was divorced in 2005, as "a housewife".

Her lawyers argued that the House of Lords had laid down guidelines in previous divorce rulings in big money cases that family assets should generally be divided equally between the breadwinner and the homemaker.

But his lawyers told the appeal judges – who also included Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wilson – that the High Court judge was wrong in the way he divided the assets of their marriage last year.

Mrs Charman, in a statement read out by her lawyer on the steps of the Royal Court of Justice in London’s Strand, said: "Iacknowledge that the sum awarded to me is huge by any standards but the Court of Appeal has decided that it fairly reflects the contributions made by John and me during our 28-year marriage."

Mr Charman, who was not in court, said in a statement: "I intend to appeal against this decision which I genuinely believe is wrong."

He was refused permission to take his case to the House of Lords for a final appeal at the highest court in the land but can apply to the Law Lords directly.

Payment was suspended pending a result of any appeal to the Lords. It was said in court Mr Charman had already paid his wife his original pounds 20 million offer. In a postscript to the appeal judgment, Sir Mark acknowledges the result of recent emphasis by the courts on the principle or equality in divorce settlements was "to raise the aspirations of the claimant hugely".

The first of these settlements was White v White, where the wife achieved total parity with her former husband because she had made an equal contribution to their business.

Sir Mark said: "In big money cases, the White factor has more than doubled the levels of award. It has been said London is the divorce capital of the world for aspiring wives." He said this needed to be considered not only in the context of our society but also as part of a wider European Community.

One of the Midlands’ leading divorce lawyers yesterday urged wealthy couples to "avoid the divorce court" if they want to protect their financial assets.

Diane Benussi, managing partner of Birmingham law firm Benussi & Co, the court ruling would only affect people earning five or six- figure sums.

"I think we do need some time to reflect on this judgment to see what it will mean in six or 12 months’ time down the line," she said.

"But the question we’ve been addressing is agreeing that the person who provides the wealth is entitled to say he or she made a special contribution, and that’s usually the husband.

"Because he made a special contribution, every time we divide the ‘pot’ it’s pounds 1 for her, pounds 2 for him, and there’s a psychological element there that’s very important.

"With globalisation, husbands are very well aware of this. I know of cases where husbands have moved their wives out of the country so the divorce is not heard in London."

Last March Chelsea boss Roman Abramovitch settled his divorce out of court, in Chukotka, Russia – where he is governor – for pounds 155 million compared with the pounds 5.5 billion his ex-wife Irina could have expected had it been heard in an English court.

Ms Benussi added: "It’s always worth making an offer because a lot of wives haven’t got the stomach for a fight, but if husbands are mean they may end up with a fight and a lot worse off than they had anticipated."

(c) 2007 Birmingham Post; Birmingham (UK). Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.