The Legal Love Story of Mr & Mrs Vince: How Bad Romance doesn’t have to mean Poor Financial Protection
We are in the “love and marriage” phase of the 2025 calendar already, with 14th February looming large!
I reflect upon the fact that our Family Law team once took part in a Wedding Fair (yes, I did say that), in the hope of capturing the love in the air and turning it into the gift of Pre-Marital Agreements and thorough Will planning from our expert Private Client colleagues.
Oh, and a few referrals to the residential property team as to newly-weds considerations about how they could own their home together, especially when the Bank of Mum and Dad were involved. It was a little left field, and we only tried it once.
However, I stand by the fact that there really should not be any stigma in planning to be financially protected whilst being in a happy, loved-up state of mind.
The long and chequered progression of the matrimonial financial case of Dale Vince and Kate Vince (Kathryn Wyatt) through the High Court provides a stark and fascinating reminder and a forceful precedent as to what can happen when a couple separates and do not put legal protections in place.
Mr v Mrs Vince: What happened?
It has taken on mythological status as the case in which the vital need for securing a financial settlement at the earliest opportunity could not be better demonstrated.
It highlights that divorce per se, alone, that is a Final Order/old Decree Absolute, is not in itself a bar on a former spouse who has not re-married pursuing a financial settlement.
You can read more about it on the BBC news website but we’ll also provide a summary here.
The mini-chronology to the case is as follows:.
- They married in December 1981 and had a son in 1983. Mrs Vince had a daughter from a previous relationship and Mr Vince treated that child as his own also. Mr Vince moved out in the following year, so a really short, two years of living together as a married couple.
- At the time of the marriage, the couple lived as New Age Travellers with very little money or assets. Upon divorcing in 1992 (yes, a long post-separation period), Mr Vince was not asked to pay maintenance for the children, as all agreed that there was no money in the pot and nothing to be shared.
But therein lies the extremely expensive oversight on the part of Mr Vince, at least, as that is when all could have been finalised financially, enabling both to move forwards independently, accruing post-divorce assets free of potential claims.
This proved to be a problem for Mr Vince but a blessing for Mrs Vince because…
- In 1996, Mr Vince founded an eco-energy company, which went on to do rather well.
- In 2011, many years after the marriage broke down, Ms Wyatt lodged a claim for financial support, arguing that Mr Vince had failed to provide for their son, and her daughter, whom he had treated as a child of the family.
Mrs Vince’s financial claims were not dismissed at the time of the divorce in 1992, so she could seek a financial settlement, with necessary reference to the parties’ respective past, intervening and current financial circumstances and available resources.
The fact that Mr Vince had built a colossal asset base, inclusive of his eco-energy company worth £57m now (oh dear) and his Chair-ship of Forest Green Rovers FC, nearly 20 years after they separated, was considered but did not ring-fence or exclude those unilaterally achieved assets from the matrimonial sharing pot.
Mr Vince may not have had the funds to secure that vital legal advice and perhaps consequential Consent Order when they first divorced, but those fees are a drop in the globe’s oceans now compared to the fees incurred over the last 10 years of litigation in the highest Law Courts in the land.
The point of law that the Supreme Court had been asked to consider was whether or not Ms Wyatt’s claim for financial support from her ex-husband was an abuse of process and should be struck out. The Supreme Court directed that it was not and that the claim should proceed in the Family Division of the High Court.
And remember, the children were young when they were in the middle of this sad break-up back in the 80s, but they are fully grown adults now.
Mrs Vince told the Court that her finances had not changed throughout, and in any event, and to be fair and realistic, even if they had improved vastly through her own endeavours and/or luck, there was likely to be a significant comparative disparity with Mr Vince’s wealth.
The Supreme Court ruled that, based on there being no automatic time limit in bringing a financial claim after a divorce and the Court’s pure intention and mission being to bring about fairness, Mrs Vince should receive 50% of the overall assets (that being Mr Vince’s assets essentially), equating to an award of £43.5m, paid in three instalments, over three years.
Mr Vince’s financial investments and actions were heavily examined by the Court and he was found to be giving away his wealth to the Labour Party, and otherwise, in a “wanton and reckless” fashion, and that even if he was not deliberately divesting himself of wealth to avoid it going to Mrs Vince, well, it should go to Mrs Vince.
This ruling is despite the early indications from the Court that it would be difficult for Mrs Vince to succeed with her claims because of the marital cohabitation subsisting for scarcely more than two years; the marriage having broken down 31 years ago; the standard of living enjoyed by the parties prior to the breakdown deemed to have been as low as it could be (neither was money-driven back then); the husband did not begin creating his current wealth until 13 years after the breakdown, and the wife had made no contribution, direct or indirect, to its creation…
Harsh? Perhaps, but this could have been avoided had the right advice at the right time been taken.
I must add that the updated Vince case chronology heard by the Supreme Court referred to possible ongoing physical and emotional relations between the parties, with them being at odds as to the actual dates and extent of a resumption/continuance of a relationship, but 2022 being a possible endpoint.
Mrs Vince argued that it wasn’t over until it was over and that she was contributing towards the marriage, and thereby the marital assets, throughout and still.
This is a salutary tale for at least one party, and as extreme as it seems, it blazes a really compelling and influential legal trail.
Judges like this case, and it will be relied upon in the right circumstances.
Prenuptial Agreements
As unromantic as it may sound, do give some thought to early financial planning and protection.
Keep the love alive with the help of Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements.
And if things don’t work out, sadly, a Separation Agreement, and ultimately a Consent Order, can come to the rescue and provide certainty in uncertain times.
Whether it is a Valentines, Pal-entines, Gal-entines or none of the above Day for you this year, Sarah Pennicott and myself, Jacqueline Mensah, are here for you, as Bennett Griffin’s hugely experienced, and personable Family Law Solicitors.
We are notably assisted by Trainee Legal Executive, Rachel Williams-Pope and Assistant, Molly Wilbrey.