Tycoon’s ex wins £2.7m payout decade after split
SELF-MADE Black Country clothing millionaire Glen Briers has lost his Appeal Court battle over a £2.7 million payout to his exwife Nicola – ten years after they split.
The Willenhall couple were teachers when they wed in 1984, but split up in 2002 after 18 years of marriage, and were finally divorced in 2005.
At the heart of a long-running legal wrangle has been the sports and street wear company Mr Briers set up in his garage with £81 of his own money, in 1988. Lydenford Ltd has grown to become a major fashion chain incorporating well-known brands such as Lambretta and Vision Streetware with a turnover of around £30 million.
Mr Briers had claimed it was unfair when his 58-year-old ex-wife was awarded the £2.7 million by a judge sitting in Birmingham in May 2015.
He argued she should only have a lump sum of £500,000 because the business had only really taken off after the split. But at the Appeal Court this week, former teacher Mr Briers lost his case.
When the couple divorced, Mr Briers, 61, gave his wife, 58, £150,000 to pay off the mortgage, and she kept their £700,000 family home. She also got a £10,000-a-year salary, plus child maintenance – but he kept the business and is now said to be worth £10 million. After her relationship with her new partner broke down, Mrs Briers went to the divorce courts asking for more and in 2015 Judge Mark Rogers handed her the £2.7 million slice of her ex’s fortune.
In his ruling at the time, Judge Rogers declared Mr Briers “a liar” who resorted to “deception” in trying to play down his wealth. After their separation, he told his wife he was moving into a rented home, hiding the fact that he owned it. At the Appeal Court, Mr Briers challenged the judge’s decision, saying the success of his business since the split was all down to his hard work and he had “taken all the risks”.
But three senior judges threw out his complaints and ordered him to pay the full £2.7 million.
Judge Sir Ernest Rider said he was guilty of “deception of the wife and untruthfulness in evidence”.
The fact was that his failure to honestly disclose his assets meant that his ex-wife had never given her informed consent to the deal. Mrs Briers, said the judge, had played a vital role in building up the business during its infancy and was entitled to a stake in its success.
He added that Mrs Briers deserved her payout due to her “huge contribution” in caring for the children whilst the company grew.
“The wife had a significant role in its formation and its early incarnation,” he said. “The simple point was that the business was a matrimonial asset. The wife’s contribution to the business stopped at separation, but her contribution as primary carer of the children was very significant.”