This is legit crazy

Drew_TNBD

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millionaire-tycoons-ex-wife-awarded-six-figure-payout-even-thoug/

Couple get divorced.
Guy goes on to create a company years AFTER their divorce.
She wants money.
Courts forcibly take money from him and award it to her.

W.T.F.

axisus

Normally I'm all for the woman getting a 'fair' share, but yes, that is rather ridiculous. I don't see how any judge could rule that a correct and just response????

Chalky

The article is light on details but I suspect there was never a full and final settlement completed at the end of the divorce. You do hope she has nothing left after legal fees.

Drew_TNBD

Chalky said:

The article is light on details but I suspect there was never a full and final settlement completed at the end of the divorce. You do hope she has nothing left after legal fees.

At the end of their divorce - from what I recall - they were both penniless, living in a camper-van and I think they had one kid too.

fretmeister

Full judgment from the Supreme Court that allowed the claim in concept.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/14.html

WezV

Wow.

Yeah, clearly it shows how important it is to get a settlement agreed, even if it doesn't seem worth it at the time

At the end it seems to suggest she deserves enough for a mortgage free life because her life is now a bit shit... But how can that possibly be seen as his responsibility?

DefaultM

Are we missing something here? Did she somehow contribute to him having the idea to set up his business etc?

Drew_TNBD

DefaultM said:

Are we missing something here? Did she somehow contribute to him having the idea to set up his business etc?

I could be misremembering, but he had some idea at a festival that occurred years after.

richardhomer

The precedent for this was set many years ago and is - I believe - known as a 'Barder Event', after a similar case where an ex-wife got the financial settlement overturned some years on - the first time it had happened.

As far as I know, this is the first time it has been used a decade later - but it's not the first time a 'binding' financial settlement has been over turned.

And yes, for the record - I think it's outrageous....

Drew_TNBD

I'm starting to think that family law and divorce lawyers are worse than paedophiles and priests.

fretmeister

Drew_fx said:

I'm starting to think that family law and divorce lawyers are worse than paedophiles and priests.

The lawyers work within the rules set by others for the benefit of their client.

The people that draft the law are called politicians. I make no comment about them.

guitarfishbay

Legality is one thing. Morally I don't see how this is defensible as anything other than luck based opportunism. If he'd made no real money there'd be nothing to claim here - I remember first hearing about this case a while ago when she was aiming to get much more.

richardhomer

guitarfishbay;1107122" said:

Legality is one thing. Morally I don't see how this is defensible as anything other than luck based opportunism. If he'd made no real money there'd be nothing to claim here - I remember first hearing about this case a while ago when she was aiming to get much more.

And presumably if his business subsequently fails, she won't be forced to offer him a refund?

Drew_TNBD

fretmeister said:

Drew_fx said:

I'm starting to think that family law and divorce lawyers are worse than paedophiles and priests.

The lawyers work within the rules set by others for the benefit of their client.

The people that draft the law are called politicians. I make no comment about them.

Same excuse we use for corporations evading their tax duties. At least a corporation doesn't recommend you get a restraining order under false pretenses to ensure you get more than your 50/50 fair share.

Drew_TNBD

guitarfishbay said:

Legality is one thing. Morally I don't see how this is defensible as anything other than luck based opportunism. If he'd made no real money there'd be nothing to claim here - I remember first hearing about this case a while ago when she was aiming to get much more.

She wanted 1.9million - 1.9 fucking million pounds!!

thomasross20

I also think it's ridiculous. Things get even more "dangerous" for the man in terms of financial liability if kids are involved (I think only biological though - as in the kids have to be that man's kids). 

fretmeister

Drew_fx said:

fretmeister said:

Drew_fx said:

I'm starting to think that family law and divorce lawyers are worse than paedophiles and priests.

The lawyers work within the rules set by others for the benefit of their client.

The people that draft the law are called politicians. I make no comment about them.

Same excuse we use for corporations evading their tax duties. At least a corporation doesn't recommend you get a restraining order under false pretenses to ensure you get more than your 50/50 fair share.

Bullshit.

1st duty of a UK lawyer is to the Court to act within the law.

2nd duty is to their own client.

A lawyer cannot recommend any illegal course of action or even recommend a legal one based on a falsehood.

The lawyer must stand down if asked to do that. 

Drew_TNBD

fretmeister said:

Drew_fx said:

fretmeister said:

Drew_fx said:

I'm starting to think that family law and divorce lawyers are worse than paedophiles and priests.

The lawyers work within the rules set by others for the benefit of their client.

The people that draft the law are called politicians. I make no comment about them.

Same excuse we use for corporations evading their tax duties. At least a corporation doesn't recommend you get a restraining order under false pretenses to ensure you get more than your 50/50 fair share.

Bullshit.

1st duty of a UK lawyer is to the Court to act within the law.

2nd duty is to their own client.

A lawyer cannot recommend any illegal course of action or even recommend a legal one based on a falsehood.

The lawyer must stand down if asked to do that. 

lol. Right.

You know it happens Paul, I know it happens. Just man the fuck up and accept that not all lawyers are the shining beacons of light that you hoped for!

PS: I like the proviso of 'UK lawyer' too.

Here is a good write up on it:
http://overlawyered.com/2005/12/restraining-david-letterman/

Drew_TNBD

Also, give this a read:
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/19/27.html

I know we are a UK centric forum Paul, and you're based in the UK. But... it's 2016 y'know... we're all connected - the worldwide web and all that.

hobbio

We don't always agree on things like this @Drew_fx, but that is fucking ridiculous. She's a greedy cunt, and she has no business being set up for life off the back of his successes after they split.

p90fool

How can anyone owe their ex-wife three hundred grand when it only costs five to have them killed?
Bloke wants to get organised.

]