Isn’t summer supposed to be a quiet time?  Frank Arndt, who heads Stowe Family Law’s international family law department, seems to be busier than ever – and not just because his team has recently been instructed in some very interesting new cases.

When the second wife of Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky was granted a “quickie divorce” at the High Court last week, Frank was contacted by a number of journalists for expert comment and analysis. His comments, about the Berezovsky case and also about the UK’s much vaunted reputation as the “divorce capital of the world”, have since appeared as far afield as Russia and Australia!

Divorce tourists face judicial rethink

Frank Arndt, head of international practice at Stowe Family Law, said: “There is a perception that wives can achieve a fairer settlement in England and importantly there are obligations here for full and frank disclosure of assets belonging to one party, which there may not be in some countries. Often husbands see divorce as a business deal and look at which jurisdiction is best.” Continue reading»

Boris Berezovsky’s wife granted “quickie divorce”

Frank Arndt, a lawyer at Stowe Family Law, which specialises in big money divorces, said: ”The Berezovskys were married for 18 years, have two teenage children and, although estimates of the couple’s fortune vary, it is indeed likely that any settlement eventually awarded to Mrs Berezovsky will dwarf the £48 million awarded to Beverley Charman in 2008.” Continue reading»

London seals reputation as divorce capital as oligarch faces £100 million payout to ex-wife

[Frank] Arndt said Berezovsky may use what is known in the legal profession as the “stellar or genius” argument used by Charman, in which he said his wife had made no financial contribution to the fortune he had built up in the insurance market during their marriage. His case resulted in a discount from the 50:50 position: a high court judge ruled Charman should have 63.5% of the couple’s wealth rather than half because of his special contribution to building it up and because the assets he was keeping were riskier than those which went to his wife.” Continue reading»

I have been reading a judgement that has recently been handed down by brand new appointment to the High Court Bench, Mr Justice Mostyn. I have been eagerly looking forward to what he has to say from the Bench and I’m pleased to say he certainly has not disappointed this reader. In this case he touches upon a subject that is often considered taboo, namely the competence of some of our judiciary. I should emphasise from the outset my own belief that the vast majority of our judges are indeed highly competent and experienced.

But Mr Justice Mostyn appears to be unhappy with the actions and findings of a District Judge below in a bitterly contested children case. That the case was fraught with difficulties, there is no doubt. But it is the manner in which it was dealt with by the judge that concerns him.

This case included a total of 17 days of hearings over a lengthy period. Thirteen other witnesses gave evidence, there were 300 pages of handwritten notes, a court transcript of the evidence running to over 1600 pages, and costs estimated at £120,000 for the father, who was paying privately. Similar sums were spent on the legal aid budget for the mother and the court-appointed Children’s Guardian.

It is unusual for an appellate court to set aside findings of fact in the lower court on the basis that the original judge is in a unique position to make those findings, having actually heard all the evidence. However, Mr Justice Mostyn set aside all the district judge’s findings and then enquired whether it was legitimate for him to conclude that “there was in fact no purpose to the inquiry at all”.

So it seems that nearly £400,000 – including a substantial sum of taxpayers’ money – was spent on a completely useless exercise. Ouch!

Continue reading »

Ivana Trump said, famously: “Don’t get mad. Get everything!” It appears that Julia McFarlane, the former wife of high-flying accountant Kenneth McFarlane, has taken these words to heart.

The judgment in the latest installment of the never-ending divorce saga that is McFarlane  v McFarlane, (2009 EWHC 891) landed on my desk yesterday morning. A judgment from Mr. Justice Charles, it is characteristically lengthy. Thirty-five pages in length, it takes a long time to read . It takes even longer to consider the meaning and impact, this judgment being his Lordship’s interpretation of what the House of Lords may have had in mind (but never expressly stated) by a “deferred clean break”, payable at some stage in the future, by Mr McFarlane to his former wife.

I was in two minds whether to write about the latest twist; after all, what relevance does any of it have to those of us who live relatively modestly in the real world? However, this case has wider implications. It reminds me of a seesaw. On one end: the stay-at-home wife and her children. On the other: the working wife and her children. In the middle, sliding from one end to the other: the husband. Does English family law substantially favour the stay-at-home wife, at the working wife’s expense? Does it curtail a second wife’s freedom to leave her job and become a stay-at-home mum?

Let me explain. Continue reading »

Earlier this week Sir Paul Coleridge, who sits as a High Court judge in Central London, spoke out about family breakdown. His speech has been widely published: I read about it in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. He talked about his sadness and frustration at the volume of family breakdowns, with lawyers warning that the family courts are “overstretched to the point of collapse”. He lamented the plight of children caught up in what he described as a game of “Pass the Partner.” The judge called for wide-ranging investigations and new laws to try and stem the tide. His belief is that that marriage, rather than cohabitation is the “gold standard” of relationships.

This speech has been widely commented upon, and I have noticed that responses from members of the public tend to fall into one of two categories. Either they back his views about marriage, or they simply dismiss what he says because they believe that he has failed to move with the times and fails to understand the new types of family that are in existence today.

My own view is straightforward. Continue reading »

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

My last post concerned a court case which turned into a disaster. My colleagues in our Children’s Department have told me that in these complex cases, the court system, especially in the lower courts, isn’t always equipped to cope, not least as there may be long delays in finding court time to hear the case.

Our court system is far from perfect. There is also not only a lack of court time, but very often a lack of funding for the parties and the requisite experts, and there is an acknowledged shortage of experienced judges to hear such cases.

My advice on the previous post was that case should be immediately transferred to the High Court, because once there, I have found generally (but not always) time can be found if urgently required, with more expertise at the helm.

When exactly should cases be transferred to the High Court?

Continue reading »

Will there be blood on the courtroom carpet this week?

As Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills face one another other in court this week, Sir Paul will be flanked by some of the country’s toughest lawyers. Ms. Mills, meanwhile, has elected to represent herself. To my way of thinking, having represented a client in a similar scenario only last week in London’s High Court, to go into court unrepresented is as foolhardy as anyone could ever imagine.

For those unfamiliar with the facilities at the Royal Courts of Justice, let me describe the atmosphere in the sombre courtroom. . Until a final deal is signed and approved by the Court, a fully fought contest could yet take place. Even an agreement reached “in principle” does not guarantee a done deal – and could still break down. Continue reading »

“The client walked away with millions – and I used the case as the basis for a storyline in The Archers.”

The hardest cases – the tricky, nerve-wracking ones that need a bit of brain power – are always the most interesting. I like to play “intellectual chess”! One such case was when a client’s husband told her, out of the blue, that he was leaving. He complained that he was fed up with her spending, and claimed she was “sending him bankrupt’”. He refused to give her his new address, but told her to contact him at his business. She suspected that he was having an affair with her (newly divorced) best friend.

This couple enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. At their swish, £3 million home, they employed a groom, a gardener, and domestic help. The wife kept ponies in a paddock and stables, and the home also had a swimming pool and tennis court. There were no children. The wife, a former model, now passed her time horse riding. The husband liked to play golf and was often seen in the company of her best friend, who was also a keen golfer.

In “Big Money” cases, as with others, assets are identified, valued and divided up. In this instance, because the couple had been as poor as church mice when they had wed and their wealth had been built up during the marriage, a straightforward 50/50 split looked to be in order. When the husband’s solicitors wrote to me, however, it became clear that he loathed his wife.

The husband gave a different version of events. He insisted that his wife’s incessant spending had brought him to the brink of bankruptcy. His company was failing. The house was fully mortgaged, save for about £300,000. There were no savings. Around £50,000 had been run up on credit cards. There were no pension arrangements, as income had been swallowed up by his wife’s profligate expenditure. He had a decreasing income of £100,000 gross per annum. He offered his wife yearly maintenance of £40,000 – although he said that he was unable to guarantee this sum in the long term – plus the sum of £200,000 towards a house. His solicitors warned that if she did not accept his “generous” offer, he would take her to court and make her pay the costs. The parties had very different stories. Which of them was telling the truth?

Continue reading »