A woman whose marriage broke down more than 30 years ago has won the right to seek payments from her ex-husband, a one-time new age traveller who became a multimillionaire businessman. Kathleen Wyatt has been granted permission by the supreme court to lodge a
belated claim against Dale Vince, who founded and runs the green energy company Ecotricity.

Wyatt, 55, who brought up their son and now lives in Monmouth with few assets, is claiming £1.9m. Vince, 53, lives in a Georgian hill fort in Gloucestershire with his second wife. His business, which provides power from wind turbines, is said to be worth £57m.

The couple met in 1981, when she was 21 and he was 19, and married later that year. Wyatt already had a child from an earlier relationship who was accepted as part of the family. They subsisted on state benefits. After moving to Norfolk, where their son was born in 1983, they parted. Vince
began travelling, initially in an old ambulance converted into a camper van.
He later drove to Spain with a new partner in a 30-year-old fire engine. Vince
and Wyatt were formally divorced in 1992. She subsequently had two more
children from a later relationship.
Vince’s first experiments in wind power began at Glastonbury festival where
he fixed a windmill to a pylon and charged mobile phone batteries. By 1996,
with the help of a bank loan, he had set up a wind turbine on top of a hill at
Nympsfield, in the Costswolds, and started generating what became a substantial income. Vince’s son with Wyatt now lives and works with him.

In a unanimous decision, five justices of the supreme court – the deputy president, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge – said the family court could not strike out Wyatt’s claim without a full consideration of the issues. But the judges warned Wyatt she faces “formidable difficulties” in seeking to establish that any financial order should be made in her favour because of the
long delay and the fact that the relationship lasted less than three years. She may, the supreme court said, be able to rely on her much greater contribution to the upbringing of the couple’s children over many years, a factor which could justify a financial order for a comparatively modest sum.
Lord Wilson, giving judgment, said: “Even at this stage, one can say that, in the light of the negatives, an award approaching [the claimed £1.9 million] is out of the question. It is a dangerous fallacy ... that the current law always requires rich men to meet the reasonable needs of their ex-wives.”

Wyatt will now have to return to the high court to pursue her claim. In a recent test case, the appeal court told the ex-wife of a millionaire horse surgeon to seek employment and warned that she had no right to expect “an income for life” at her former husband’s expense.

Responding to the supreme court decision, Wyatt’s lawyers, Mishcon de Reya, said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of our client Kath Wyatt and that her application can continue. We have always believed that our
client has a strong case, and we welcome the clarity of this decision.” Vince said: “I’m disappointed that the supreme court has decided not to bring this case to an end now, over 30 years since the relationship ended.
“We both moved on and started families of our own. For my part the passing of time is extremely prejudicial, it’s been so long that there are no records, no court has kept anything, and it’s hard to defend yourself in such circumstances
– indeed the delay itself has enabled the claim, because there is no paperwork in existence.
“I feel that we all have a right to move on, and not be looking over our shoulders. This could signal open season for people who had brief relationships a quarter of a century ago ... it’s mad in my opinion.

“In this case there are no joint assets, the separation was 30 years ago, and there’s no incentive to be sensible on costs – because I’m paying both sides. It’s one thing to face a reckless claim, but another entirely to have to fund it to
court.” Elizabeth Hicks, a leading divorce lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, said: “This ruling essentially paves the way for anyone without a completed financial order to bring a claim against their former spouse regardless of how long ago they
divorced.

“The case highlights the importance of ensuring that all financial matters are finalised at the time of divorce and a court order is obtained. Otherwise it could lead to future claims to a share of the wealth earned after the divorce.
“It is unprecedented to hear of a claim being made after 22 years but the court has ruled that because there was no financial order and no time limit in family law for making a financial order, there was nothing to prevent Ms Wyatt’s
claim from being successful and the high court will now consider how much she should receive bearing in mind current law"

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/11/woman-wins-right-seek-money-ex-husband-30-years-after-break-up-dale-vince

Cool

how is it cool...

She got her right.

Which right are you referring to

They had divorced long ago

How is she entitled to a portion of assets that were non existent at the time of the divorce or do u have more information aside the original post




Cc: vickybee

That's none of my business.

That's her right. Cry me a river!



cc: Pickabeau1

You are not being clear with your points

Which right are you referring to...

Are u saying it is right for a woman to have a right on non existent assets

So if I divorce my wife today and she becomes a billionaire in ten years time I have a right to that money

Read before you answer

Cc: vickybee

Lol, I don't really care - i'm just jubilating with the woman. That's a badass girl.

Sharp girls rock!

cc: pickabeau1

Ok...

Now shes sharp...

Vickybee:
Lol, I don't really care - i'm just jubilating with the woman. That's a badass girl.

Sharp girls rock!

cc: pickabeau1

pickabeau1:
Ok...

Now shes sharp...

Yes! Badooo!

Wyatt will now have to return to the high court to pursue her claim. In a recent test case, the appeal court told the ex-wife of a millionaire horse surgeon to seek employment and warned that she had no right to expect “an income for life” at her former husband’s expense.

If only all judges became as sensible as the one who made the judgement in this test case.

This ruling is so wrong

I don't get it.

Is the judge alright at all?

The Supreme Court judges must have some gas leak in their chambers or something. The woman had been denied this right by lower courts; just to get things in perspective.

@Vickybee: just to be clear, she hasn't got any money.

I swear this travesty couldn't happen in Russia .

Crackhaus, Pickabeau1, how una dey?

sweetcocoa:
I don't get it.

Is the judge alright at all?

my sister, na about 3 or 4 judges sef. Old psychos

Bros

i dey oo

i dey hold my side

How are your peeps

Timbuktou:
The Supreme Court judges must have some gas leak in their chambers or something. The woman had been denied this right by lower courts; just to get things in perspective.

@Vickybee: just to be clear, she hasn't got any money.

I swear this travesty couldn't happen in Russia .

Crackhaus, Pickabeau1, how una dey?

pickabeau1:
Bros

i dey oo

i dey hold my side

How are your peeps

We thank God, everybody dey well

If the ex wife is asking him to compensate her for taking care of their child alone financially,then it is understandable but if she is just trying to leach on him,it is totally wrong.

zeb04:
If the ex wife is asking him to compensate her for taking care of their child alone financially,then it is understandable but if she is just trying to leach on him,it is totally wrong.

She doesn't need compensation for taking care of a child she had. It's not like she was the step-mom. At the time this guy had nothing and could literally give nothing. Now, the son works and lives with the father. That woman does not deserve a shilling

I knew Lady Hale would be a feminist and I am pretty sure she gave the leading speech.


The woman is lucky that her husband was really kind to have let her live #greedybitch#

zeb04:
If the ex wife is asking him to compensate her for taking care of their child alone financially,then it is understandable but if she is just trying to leach on him,it is totally wrong.

How could a parent claim compensation for bringing up her own child?


Heaven knows they if it were my mum, she should be prepared to die alone.

Justfollowit:


How can a parent wants compensation for bringing up her own child?


Heaven knows they if it were my mum, she should be prepared to die alone.

That a court would even regard such a case is most baffling

I gave him sex
I gave him my body
I gave him a child



I gotta get mine



Asking for money to raise your own child

Some women's mentality since the garden of Eden

And this woman will shout loudest for equality. I don't get these things.

No the child flew from heaven and landed in the woman's stomach

pickabeau1:
I gave him sex
I gave him my body
I gave him a child



I gotta get mine



Asking for money to raise your own child

Some women's mentality since the garden of Eden

^^ Ignored

When you are capable of having a discourse ring me up

Well, there is nothing bad in doling out some few green back for your ex if you can make it rain.

You don't need a court .

Truckpusher:
Well, there is nothing bad in doling out some few green back for your ex if you can make it rain.

You don't need a court .

There certainly something wrong in enforcing the doling, isn't there?

Timbuktou:
And this woman will shout loudest for equality. I don't get these things.

Point of correction: Not all women are feminist and believe in equality.

Stop using her to judge us.

you'll be funny

pickabeau1:
^^ Ignored

When you are capable of having a discourse ring me up

Vickybee:

Point of correction: Not all women are feminist and believe in equality.

Stop using her to judge us.

Lol. Vicky you need to stop drinking Red Bull, you done turn to puma. Relax, chile.

Btw, you saying you don't believe in equality? Just to be clear on your stance, sweety.