Millionairess wins fight to stop cheating ex getting half fortune
A CAREER woman who earned millions of pounds in bonuses has won a battle to stop her cheating former husband receiving half their money.
City of London energy trader Julie Sharp, 44, had the amount awarded to her former spouse Robin after their “short” marriage ended cut from £2,725,000 to £2million.
She had gone to the Appeal Court to challenge a ruling that Mr Sharp was entitled to 50 per cent of their matrimonial pot of £5,450,000.
Yesterday three judges in London allowed her appeal, saying the case lay outside the “principle” of equal sharing.
Discount
Lord Justices McFarlane, McCombe and Richards heard Mrs Sharp had offered £1.2million to “comfortably” meet the needs of her internet technology consultant ex-husband, 43.
The judges ruled the total award should be £2million, comprising a £900,000 lump sum and a £1.1million property to be transferred to him.
The couple, who lived in a £2million matrimonial home near Cheltenham, were on salaries of around £100,000 when they met in 2007.
They married in June 2009 and over several years Mrs Sharp was paid bonuses totalling £10.5million, much of which went on property purchase and renovation.
They had no children and the judges heard they separated in 2013 after Mrs Sharp found out her husband had been “pursuing a new relationship for some time and the marriage in practical terms came to an end”.
In 2015 family court judge Sir Peter Singer ruled that the “principled outcome” was that Mr Sharp should get half their assets.
He said: “The fact that this is in effect a husband’s claim against a wife rather than the more conventional claim of a wife against husband does not call for a discount.”
When the couple split up their joint pot stood at £6.9million.
The £5.45million figure which was split in half excluded a house Mrs Sharp bought before the marriage and £350,000 she held in “pre-acquired and unmingled” assets.
In February the appeal judges were told Mrs Sharp’s case was that her husband should not get half “because this was a short marriage”. Yesterday the judges stressed their ruling was not intended to “unsettle” the understanding which applied to the vast majority of divorce settlements. Robin Sharp lost money Couple’s £2million Gloucestershire home