Wife divorced 23 years ago does have right to share of fortune husband made later
A FORMER New Age traveller yesterday won the right to demand a six-figure settlement from her multi-millionaire ex-husband – almost a quarter of a century after they divorced.
In a landmark case, the Supreme Court approved 55-year-old Kathleen Wyatt’s bid to claim money from Dale Vince, whose green energy business has made him an estimated £100million since the split.
The decision is likely to open the way for a flood of similar claims in family courts.
Ms Wyatt described the ruling as ‘important’, but Mr Vince, 53, said it was ‘mad’. Her legal victory means she is likely to win from him the money for a comfortable new home.
The pair’s relationship broke up more than 30 years ago – 13 years before Mr Vince started his company. They had met and married in 1981, when he was a New Age traveller and protester against nuclear weapons. The couple had a son, Dane, in 1983, but separated the following year.
They were briefly re-united at a summer solstice event at Stonehenge, but divorced in 1992 in Gloucestershire.
Since then, Ms Wyatt has supported four children, three by other men. Her eldest, Emily, was brought up by Mr Vince until the divorce, according to her younger sister Jessie. Emily, now 36, was jailed for burglary last year. The court heard she was a
‘Years of real hardship’ ‘A right to move on’
heroin-addicted prostitute. In the years since her divorce Ms Wyatt has lived on traveller sites in the South West – one described by her ex-husband as ‘a rubbish tip’ – and at a homeless shelter.
She has taken jobs picking fruit, and since the mid-1990s has lived largely on benefits. Her current home is a former council house in Monmouth, south Wales, bought on a mortgage for £60,000 under right- to- buy laws. It was described in court as being damp and badly heated.
By contrast, her former husband has founded Ecotricity, now one of the UK’s biggest green energy companies, worth at least £57million.
The strict vegan lives in a £3million 18th century castle near Stroud, Gloucestershire, with his second wife and their five-year-old son.
Mr Vince also owns Forest Green Rovers football club where he has banned red meat for players and supporters.
Mr Vince’s son Dane moved in with his father in 2001 after the business began to take off.
In December 2012 a judge ordered the ex-husband to pay Ms Wyatt £125,000. But he challenged the ruling and Appeal Court judges struck it out. Yesterday, Supreme Court justices ruled in favour of Ms Wyatt and said her claim should be heard by a judge in the Family Division of the High Court. She is demanding almost £2million.
Lord Wilson, speaking for all five justices, said that under 1973 divorce legislation the courts should have taken into account the years Ms Wyatt looked after the couple’s son.
‘He was brought up by Ms Wyatt,’ the judge said. ‘She struggled to do so. They were 16 years of real hardship for her and her family. At times they lived in caravans. They moved home frequently. They lived from hand to mouth.’
Lord Wilson said the burden had fallen on Ms Wyatt and her contribution had been unmatched by Mr Vince.
As a result, the case should now be reconsidered by a family court, he said. Lord Wilson added: ‘Unwisely, Miss Wyatt has pitched her claim at £ 1.9million and it is obvious … that an award approaching that size is out of the question. Her claim may even be dismissed.
‘But there is … a real prospect that she will secure a comparatively modest award, perhaps of a size which would enable her to purchase a somewhat more comfortable mortgage-free home.’
Ms Wyatt’s solicitor, Barbara Reeves of law firm Mishcon de Reya, said: ‘She looks forward to concluding the litigation as quickly as possible.’
Ms Reeves added that Mishcon would try to win a costs order against Mr Vince to cover its fees, which have so far swallowed up all but £2,539 of the £125,000 awarded to Ms Wyatt in the earlier court hearing.
After the ruling, Mr Vince said: ‘I am 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 … it’s hard to defend yourself in such circumstances. Indeed, the delay itself has enabled the claim, because there is no paperwork in existence.’
He added: ‘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.’