Banker told to pay ex-wife “significant sums”

finances and divorce

A successful banker has failed in his bid to appeal against an order that he must pay large sums owed to his ex-wife.

In a long-running financial dispute following the couple’s divorce, the former husband sought a reduction in or cancellation of court-ordered maintenace payments, claiming he could not afford them. But he failed to convince His Honour Judge Brasse at a hearing in November 2015. The Judge duly imposed a so-called Hadkinson order. These prohibit the recipient from taking any further legal action in a dispute until a previous legal order (in this case, to pay maintenance) is complied with.

The former husband had worked for the international banking groups BNP Paribas and Crédit Suisse. He and his ex-wife married in London, eventually separating in 2007. Both relocated to the United States but their divorce proceeded through the English courts.

At a hearing in November 2013, a judge assessed the banker’s annual income as approximately $1 million, and almost tripled the wife’s maintenance payments, legally termed ‘periodical payments’,  from $132,000 to $380,000 per year. But the husband insisted that he could not afford to pay this.

He appeared in court without a lawyer, saying legal representation was beyond his means and that an apartment in New York worth more than $3 million “doesn’t mean I’m rich”.

The Hadkinson order related to his failure to pay the money ordered at the November 2013 hearing. The husband’s appeal against this, in which he argued that it had been based on incorrect information, failed to sway the Court however. Senior President of Tribunals Sir Ernest Ryder upheld Judge Brasse’s ruling. Key issues remained unexplained he said, such as why a salary  paid of nearly £1million paid by one business had abruptly stopped the following year.

The order had been correct, Sir Ernest declared, and the outstanding sums, not specified in the judgement, must be paid.

“…the husband is the author of his own misfortune and comes to the court with less than clean hands having failed to file evidence that would have sufficed to show that his application to vary or discharge the November 2013 periodical payments order was well founded.”

The husband was, continued Sir Ernet, in “wilful default” and he had failed to make afull and frank disclosure” of his finances to the court.

Read the ruling here.

Image by Tax Credits via Flickr

Stowe Family Law Web Team

View more from this author

1 comment

Paul - March 31, 2017 at 9:25pm

Silly banker. There is a reason why most high flyimg money men stay single an use hookers. Hard to feel sorry for a banker to be honest. We are heading towards a society which shuns women and relationships altogether. Young lads have an endless supply of porn at their finger tips
There is a real feeling that a woman can never love you as much as your wallet. Sad days ahead.

Leave a comment