Jilted wife goes on a bonus hunt

The estranged wife of a UK director who earned ¤1.8-million in 2016 says she should get a share of his bonuses until 2019, seven years after their break-up.

Kim Waggott says William Waggott, finance director of Tui Travel, should pay her 35% of his bonuses between 2014 and 2019, regardless of whether she needs the money, according to his court filings for a London hearing on Wednesday.

Lawyers say the case could set a “very significant precedent”, making wealthy people’s divorces more expensive.

Bankers and corporate executives are often at the centre of some of the biggest UK divorces. London courts have gained a reputation as sympathetic places to play out high-stakes divorces as judges generally order a 50-50 split of assets.

Michael Gouriet, a family law attorney at Withers LLP, said if Kim Waggott won, she would be the first person to receive a share of their ex-partner’s future income without showing she needed the money.

If that happened, “you’re exposing very-high earning people to much bigger divorce settlements”, said Gouriet.

A lawyer for William Waggott declined to comment. Kim Waggott’s lawyers could not be reached for comment.

Kim Waggott says she supported her husband through the early stages of his career during a 21-year relationship that ended in 2012.

She “should be entitled to a share of the post-separation major fruits of that career”, her lawyers say.

But William Waggott argues that once their assets — including a £4.3-million home in Buckinghamshire, a multi-million pound holiday house in Mallorca and TUI stock — have been divvied up and her needs have been met, there is “no justification” for her having an extra share of his future earnings.

William Waggott, 54, was paid ¤1.8million in 2016, according to Bloomberg.

At a previous hearing Kim Waggott, 49, was granted a deal that turned out to be worth £9.8-million. It included half of the couple’s capital assets, an equal split of the pair’s pensions and a diminishing portion of the shares that he would be paid in the years after they separated.

Alex Carruthers, a partner at law firm Hughes Fowler Carruthers, said a previous Supreme Court case had “made it clear that maintenance could be awarded over and above that required to meet a party’s needs” if the “economically weaker spouse” could argue they had sacrificed a lucrative career to care for the children.