Ex-stockbroker loses £1m court battle over ‘kitchen table’ divorce
Husband struck DIY deal with ex but sued lawyers after changing his mind
A FoRMER stockbroker has lost a £1million court fight over the ‘DiY divorce’ he struck with his royal toymaker wife.
Jeanette nieman, whose firm made Prince George’s swing set, walked away from her marriage to Mark nieman with more than £2million in cash and assets.
Desperate to minimise his legal costs, Mr nieman handled the settlement himself instead of his lawyers, Withers LLP.
But then the 63-year-old sued the firm at the High Court, claiming it had given him ‘negligent’ advice in the background of the negotiations that had cost him £1million.
A judge threw out his claim yesterday, saying Mr nieman could not blame anyone else for the deal he struck with his 47-year-old ex.
The court was told that Mr nieman enjoyed a successful 20-year career in the City as a stockbroker, later working for investment bank UBS, where he met his wife in 1998.
She was a well-paid accountant and they enjoyed a high standard of living
‘It is a classic case of hindsight’
with a nanny, private schooling for their two children and expensive holidays. Mrs nieman soon gave up her job and set up her thriving business, The oak and Rope Company, which specialises in luxury gifts.
Mr nieman had by then decided to retire and had moved with his wife to Kent to ‘pursue the country life and less stressful interests’.
Mrs nieman told her husband in 2015 that she wanted a divorce. He was in poor health and ‘extremely distressed’, the court heard.
‘ Keeping costs down was a significant concern of his throughout,’ said Mr Justice Andrew Baker explaining that Withers had been instructed to act in the background because Mr nieman wanted a ‘ kitchen table’ divorce.
The couple were unable to come to a complete agreement until after Mrs nieman issued a legal claim, resulting in a courtapproved settlement in 2017.
Mr nieman kept the £3million family home and farm near Canterbury, as well as cash and around £1million in shares.
His wife retained three cottages, her £800,000 new address, a holiday home in norway, her gifts company, a £400,000 share of her husband’s UBS pension and £695,000 in cash.
Suing the law firm, Mr nieman claimed that the result was unfair and that he should not have ended up sharing his UBS pension with his ex or paying her any more than £100,000 as a lump sum. But Amanda Savage QC, acting for Withers, pointed out that Mr nieman had done most of the negotiating himself and signed without telling the firm.
‘it is a notable feature of this case that Mr nieman did not wish or instruct Withers to act on a wholesale basis, but wanted them to advise him in the background with a view to negotiating the divorce settlement with Jeanette directly,’ she said. ‘The fact and detail of these direct discussions was often not relayed to Withers either at all or until after concessions had been made in the negotiations.’
The barrister said Mrs nieman had walked away with around 39 per cent of the family’s total assets, which was a ‘good result’ for her husband after a long marriage, since it could easily have been a 50-50 split.
‘it is contended that this claim is a classic case of hindsight, and an example of a claimant wishing they had done things differently and achieved a better result,’ she added.
The judge said Mr nieman was ‘not a reliable historian of the material events’ and his ‘evidence was all over the place’. ‘The idea to offer to pension share as a quid pro quo for a reduced cash sum came from Mr nieman, not from Withers,’ he said. ‘ Mr nieman had always regarded it as a beneficial arrangement.
‘So long as any financial package for Mrs nieman involved a substantial payment from Mr nieman, he would probably have preferred and offered a pension share in place of some or all of the cash sum obligation.’
The judge added: ‘i conclude that the negligence claim against Withers fails.’
A counter- claim by the law firm for payment of around £ 35,000 in unpaid bills was allowed.
‘Not a reliable historian’