A man based in Dubai has successfully appealed aspects of the financial remedy orders made following his divorce.
In B v B, the 54 year-old married in April 1983. Over the course of their 30 year marriage, he and his wife had two children. She petitioned for divorce in February 2013 and sought financial remedy orders to support herself. These dictate how a divorcing couple will divide their money and other assets.
Orders were made by a district judge which said that the sale of the former family home, and another property they owned, should be divided equally between the husband and wife. The husband was also ordered to pay his wife £6,500 per month. This would add up to £78,000 per year.
The figure was based on the husband’s salary from his job in Dubai, where he paid no tax on his income. The husband, however, appealed the decision as he claimed it included income which was not guaranteed.
In Dubai, the husband received a fixed salary, but also some additional allowances for somewhere to live and for his car. Additionally, he received “a non-contractual discretionary bonus” for two years.
He argued that this did not count as guaranteed income so it should not have been a factor in the financial remedy orders.
Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mrs Justice Roberts ruled that it would be “unnecessarily cumbersome” to change the orders to make payments based on a percentage of any future bonuses. She said that she would leave the basic structure of the initial award undisturbed.
However, the judge said that, at least until the family home is sold, £60,000 per year would be sufficient to meet the wife’s financial needs. Therefore she adjusted the orders to reflect that ruling.
To read the full judgment, click here.
