Report comment

London would not have become the "divorce capital" for wives, had there been a winding up and final accounting of Mr and Mrs White's business partnership. Contrary to Mr White's claim that he had inherited the second farm, Rexton, both farms had been purchased by the partners.

As the forensic accountant commented: "Mrs White should surely have a farm." Despite being a wage-earner and equal partner, she was deprived of both farms and 'awarded' a payment for her contribution as a home-maker and child-carer.

Contrary to some reports in the press, her 'award' was not swallowed up in legal costs but used to purchase her next farm (much smaller than those of which she was deprived) and re-establish herself as the farmer she has always been.

Mr White no longer actively farms, being able to retire on the proceeds of the litigation which facilitated his acquisition of all the partnership assets.

It would have been more accurate to cite London as the "divorce capital" for husbands.