A judge has ruled that a woman who brought a £10m financial remedies claim more than 20 years after her divorce should receive nothing. Mr Justice Peel said her demand came as ‘to put it mildly, something of a surprise’ to her ex-husband, after the unnamed former couple had led separate and independent lives and not had contact with each other for some 12 years. 

In LIN v PAR, the judge said that there had not been any substantial non-disclosure or undue pressure in the original agreement, with the delay of more than 20 years a ‘highly relevant’ factor in analysing the fairness of the claim. Neither should the ex-husband – now a successful businessman worth £100m – be held responsible for his ex-wife’s relative lack of wealth.

‘H had no say or involvement in her life choices,’ said the judge. ‘He should not be the insurer of last resort against those choices. Why should he be responsible for meeting present and future needs which are not generated by their relationship? The fact that H is vastly wealthier than W does not of itself justify an award in her favour.’

The couple were married for nine years and did not have children. The business in which they owned a stake had collapsed in value before their divorce, but the ex-husband successfully built new companies after their split.

The court found that the ex-wife had been ‘manipulated’ by a man, referred to as Mr TP, who approached her in 2022 and became her friend and adviser. TP encouraged her to take legal advice.

Her lawyers, Dawson Cornwell, discovered that no final order had ever been made. With TP’s ‘active encouragement’, the ex-wife then brought a financial remedies application, arguing that the original agreement should be disregarded because of material non-disclosure.

Dawson Cornwell set out demands for £10m to cover the ex-wife’s interim needs and legal fees, undertakings from the ex-husband not to transfer money and a schedule of his financial disclosure within 14 days. 

The judge said this was ‘a thoroughly inappropriate and hostile first communication which set a most unfortunate tone for the proceedings’.

By the time of trial, and with new lawyers, the ex-wife sought £2.63m to pay towards £1.5m housing costs and £340,000 to cover her debts.

The ex-husband proposed a drop-hands outcome where he would withdraw any requirements to repay his legal costs. Responding to the application cost him nearly £1.4m in legal fees and he has paid his ex-wife around £339,000 to cover her fees.