Wife Seeks Support 30 Years After Separation

GAL & PAL #2jpgImagine that you married when you were 20-years-old, had a child with your spouse and separated three years later. During the marriage you lived a peripatetic “new age hippy” lifestyle surviving on welfare benefits, with not a penny to your name.

Would you be surprised when your ex-wife, thirty years later brought a claim against you for financial compensation?

In a rags to riches tale, British entrepreneur and founder of wind farm company Ecotricity, Dale Vince, has battled his former spouse for several years to defeat her claim against him. She is asking for almost 2 million pounds.

Mr. Vince created a wind turbine from recycled materials, a venture that brought him millions of pounds and an Order of the British Empire.

Living in the lap of luxury with his second wife and their child, life was good. But not so good for his ex Kathleen Wyatt. When the marriage ended she took responsibility for their son, her daughter from a previous marriage, and went on to have two more children with her second husband, a marriage that also ended in divorce. Husband #2 also failed to provide financial support.

Ms. Wyatt approached Mr. Vince privately to see if he might be persuaded to assist her financially. He would not, and so she left the matter alone, claiming she was intimidated by his anger in response to her requests.

Her first foray into court in 2011 was successful, the lower court ruling that since the matter of support had never been settled or litigated, and given there was no statutory time limit to seek support, her claim could proceed.

Happily for Dale Vince, the English Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court. Lord Justice Jackson said the court “should not allow people to be harassed by claims for financial relief which were issued many years after the divorce and had no real prospect of success.” The Court also noted that Mr. Vince was “the most improbable candidate for affluence.”

Alas for Mr. Vince, this week five members of Britain’s highest court, the House of Lords, overturned the appeal court’s ruling. Lord Wilson, for a unanimous court, ruled that the court must consider “the contribution of each party to the welfare of the family, including by looking after the home or caring for the family”.

Mr. Vince characterized his ex’s win as her “cashing in an old lottery ticket” however, the decision made by the Law Lords only allows her to pursue her claim. It does not guarantee her any amount of money and it is notable that the Court cautioned that it was unlikely she would receive anything close to millions of pounds.

The decision has received much media attention with Ms. Wyatt’s supporters suggesting that Mr. Vince went on his merry way unencumbered to achieve fame and fortune, while Ms. Wyatt cared for his son with no financial assistance from him.

Those who support wind-farm tycoon Mr. Vince decry the ruling saying that because Ms. Wyatt remarried and had two additional children, she should look to their father for support. They also criticize a media report that Mr. Vince has so far paid half a million pounds in legal fees, including his payment of Ms. Wyatt’s legal expenses. They protest that if she wishes to bring a claim against him, she should pay for it!

The next chapter of this litigation will be carefully watched and no doubt, appealed at every level.

As for former spouses in British Columbia, it is always dangerous to leave family matters “undone” and yes, there have been several cases where spouses have brought claims long after separation and been successful.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Biased Judge Removed from Divorce Case

GEO_edited-1Sir Nicholas Mostyn was a formidable divorce lawyer before he was appointed a judge in London, England in 2010. Nicknamed “Mr. Payout”, he had an illustrious reputation for obtaining large sums of money for his female clients and was among the most sought after barristers for the monied upper class.

Of course, many male clients clamoured for his services and he represented Paul McCartney in his divorce battle with Heather Mills. She sought $125 million dollars but was only awarded $25 million.

He also acted for Lady Diana’s brother, the Earl of Spencer, who later sued Mr. Mostyn claiming that his second wife received $1 million more in a settlement than she deserved because Mostyn failed to advise him that his divorce proceeding would not remain private, as there had been a recent change in the law.

The Earl of Spencer was forced to settle to avoid the fall-out of a public trial. The lawsuit went nowhere.

This week Justice Mostyn was subject to a rare order from the Court of Appeal, removing him from a case he had been assigned.

It is not uncommon to hear clients complain about judges who they perceive are unsympathetic, even biased against them, but it is a rare occasion when an application to remove a judge is granted.

In British Columbia if counsel believes there is evidence to suggest that a judge may be biased against their client, they may bring an application to have the judge removed. However, the tricky part is that the application must be brought before the judge you accuse of bias.

About 99% of the time, the judge will gamely hear the application but dismiss it. These applications are infrequent, however, I remember a case fifteen years ago where I brought such an application. At the time, my legal research indicated that the chances of success were extremely slight and true to form, the application was dismissed.

As for Justice Mostyn, the complaint against him included
the allegation that he had made up his mind against litigant Mr. Mann, who had cancer, had fallen on hard times and lived in social housing. Mrs. Mann brought the matter to court in her attempt to have her ex-husband pay her $2 million she said was owed her as a result of their matrimonial matter, following their separation in 2007.

Justice Mostyn threatened to throw Mr. Mann in prison if he did not pay his ex-wife the funds owed. Mr. Mann’s lawyer also argued that the Justice was generally hostile towards his client throughout the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal judges acceded to the claim against Justice Mostyn. Lady Justice Macur referred to hearings before Judge Mostyn in February and June 2014, describing ‘intemperate judicial dialogues’ showing that Justice Mostyn had made up his mind about Mr Mann’s ability to pay.

She also said: ‘During that time Mostyn J’s frustration is palpable and clearly arises from his obvious belief that Mr. Mann is deliberately and maliciously avoiding his legal and moral responsibilities.’

A new judge has been assigned to the case.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Is “Yelling” Domestic Violence? British Court Says “Yes”.

49afd8240a58bf0fb97d4a86105572c1Have you ever yelled at your spouse, perhaps out of frustration or even anger? If you say “no”, I don’t believe you.

For those of us who on those rare, embarrassing occasions have sounded off rather loudly, best keep away from England, since Britain’s highest court has found that raising your voice to your spouse qualifies as domestic violence.

This is truly a case of “words mean what I say they mean” and the “I” is Baroness Hale of Richmond, who was the first woman appointed to the prestigious House of Lords in 2004 and in 2009 took her place on England’s new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. She is the most senior female judge in Britain.

The case involved 35 year-old Mirhet Yemshaw who lived in government subsidized housing with her husband and children. She brought an action against the housing authority for refusing to provide her with her own apartment after she left the home she shared with her husband because of alleged domestic violence.

Ms. Yemshaw had not been threatened by her spouse, neither had she ever been physically assaulted; no pushing, shoving, or slapping. Nothing.

She said that her spouse had yelled at her in front of the children and did not provide her with a sufficient allowance to run the household. She also said that she was afraid she would lose custody of her children.

Rather than viewing this as a preemptive strike in an obvious matrimonial dispute, Lady Hale declared that the definition of domestic violence must change to include a range of abusive behaviors.

She said it was not up to the government or other officials to decide what constituted domestic violence, rather it was within the purview of the courts alone to determine changes in the meaning of Parliament’s words.

Lady Hale remarked that while the dictionary defined “violence” as a physical attack it could also include “extreme fervor, passion or fury.”

The ramifications of this ruling will be draconian and disastrous in terms of the interpretation of a variety of criminal and family law statutes. I wonder if Lady Hale thought about that before she decided she knew better than everyone else.

However, she was not alone. Four male Law Lords agreed with her decision, albeit Lord Brown expressed what he called “real doubt” about the correctness of the decision, noting that the ruling overturned two precedent cases decided by six Justices of the Court of Appeal. Nonetheless, he was content to let the majority rule.

Yemshaw’s husband says all of this started because his wife was unhappy.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang