A seven-year divorce battle in the Royal Court has laid bare a marriage fuelled by inherited millions, a \u201cparty lifestyle\u201d, prostitutes, \u201dlipstick and knicker money\u201d, and threats over a USB stick of intimate photographs \u2013 culminating in a financial dispute in which the judge had to warn that the court did not possess \u201ca magic wand\u201d.<\/p>\n
Judge Samantha McFadzean was required to disentangle the finances of a former Jersey couple who, she found, had spent decades enjoying the fruits of a family business \u201cwithout making any contribution to that wealth or any effort to moderate their lifestyle\u201d.<\/p>\n
The former husband and wife were married in Jersey in the 1990s and divorced in 2018. Their only child is now an adult and works in the family business. <\/p>\n
The case concerned ancillary relief \u2013 who should get what, and how following the breakdown of their marriage.<\/p>\n
What emerged was a portrait of a \u201clavish life\u201d funded almost entirely by an inherited business empire, followed by what the wife described as five years of \u201cliving like a peasant\u201d.<\/p>\n
The wife told the court that during the marriage she received \u00a33,000 a month from her husband for what she described as \u201clipstick and knicker money\u201d. <\/p>\n
She said the family enjoyed a \u201cparty lifestyle\u201d, with overseas holidays \u201cnever flying further back than in business class\u201d and free rein of the business premises, where they \u201cate and partied\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe only man paid to keep out of a business\u201d<\/p>\n
At the time of separation, she said, her husband was drawing more than \u00a345,000 a month from the business, despite \u201cnever doing any work\u201d. In a single year, his annual drawings exceeded \u00a3600,000.<\/p>\n
The husband accepted that he had effectively retired in his twenties and lived off dividends from his late father\u2019s businesses. <\/p>\n
He was described by his former wife as \u201cthe only man paid to keep out of a business\u201d.<\/p>\n
The husband described himself as the \u201csilent partner\u201d in the business, conceding that his younger brother \u2013 who he said did not share his \u201callergy to mathematics\u201d \u2013 ran the business and bore the burden of keeping it afloat.<\/p>\n
As the marriage collapsed in 2018, the husband agreed to pay his former wife around \u00a316,000 per month. After a brief period, she was told that her spending was \u201cexcessive\u201d and that payment was reduced to \u00a310,000 per month.<\/p>\n
The wife claimed that she sold jewellery for \u00a38,000 to survive, and borrowed around \u00a385,000 from friends who supported her during the course of the legal proceedings.<\/p>\n
She was therefore seeking a lump sum of \u00a37.5 million from her former husband, as well as the transfer of a luxury flat mortgage-free or, failing that, maintenance of \u00a318,000 a month until she reached the age of 75.<\/p>\n
The husband countered with an offer of \u00a32,000 a month for three years.<\/p>\n
The wife dismissed that proposal, telling the court she could not accept that \u201c\u2018in a million years\u201d as that was less than he \u201c\u2018used to pay his prostitute\u201d while they were married.<\/p>\n
The wife admitted taking a USB stick from her husband\u2019s wash bag which contained intimate photographs and videos. <\/p>\n
She accepted that she had threatened to share the material in order to pressure him into settling, though she appeared \u201cunaware of the relevance\u201d of the conduct, telling the court that her husband also retained intimate material of her.<\/p>\n
By the final hearing, both parties were unrepresented. The judge said the case was \u201centirely unsuitable\u201d for litigants in person and left the court with \u201ca veritable mountain to climb\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cParty lifestyle\u201d did not provide \u201cany useful skills\u201d<\/p>\n
Central to the dispute was the husband\u2019s share in a major inherited Jersey business, valued at more than \u00a310 million before debt in earlier proceedings but now said to be under severe pressure. <\/p>\n
The court heard that the husband\u2019s brother had personally paid around \u00a31.26 million over three years to fund the husband\u2019s living expenses, legal costs and maintenance payments.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is difficult to understand why an experienced businessman would continue to extend support at this level without some prospect of recoupment; brotherly love must have its limits,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n
She found that the former couple\u2019s \u201cparty lifestyle\u201d had done \u201clittle to equip either party with any useful skills\u201d.<\/p>\n
Acknowledging that the wife was a trained beauty therapist, Judge McFadzean noted that she had not worked for decades and that her earning capacity was \u201cvery limited indeed\u201d. <\/p>\n
But she criticised the husband\u2019s line of questioning about why the wife could not support herself as \u201cironic\u201d, given that he himself had \u201cnot worked, nor it appears, had he been expected to work during his adult life\u201d. <\/p>\n
She observed that he had told the court he wanted their son to \u201cdo what he enjoys doing\u201d, adding that this appeared to mirror the husband\u2019s own approach to most of his adult life \u2013 and expressing the hope, for the sake of the family business, that the next generation would prove \u201crather more driven\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court does not possess a magic wand\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge McFadzean concluded that the dispute was not driven by incapacity but by attitude, saying it was \u201cmore a case of \u2018won\u2019t work\u2019, rather than \u2018can\u2019t work\u2019\u201d in both cases, adding that the former couple\u2019s ability to earn \u201cmay be as limited as their motivation\u201d. <\/p>\n
She said: \u201cIt seems that [the wife], like the husband, has long adopted the cavalier attitude of a child, who says \u2018I want\u2019 with no regard for how desires can be met. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe court does not, sadly, possess a magic wand.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge McFadzean ordered that the family flat be sold, with the net proceeds paid to the wife.<\/p>\n
She dismissed the wife\u2019s claim for a \u00a37.5 million lump-sum as \u201cfanciful\u201d but ordered that the husband must pay her a lump sum of \u00a3850,000 by no later than August 2028, or sooner if he sells or transfers interests in his business assets.<\/p>\n
He was also ordered to pay maintenance of \u00a32,500 a month until 2035, plus a further \u00a33,000 a month towards rent until the lump sum is paid to ensure the wife was \u201cadequately housed, mortgage-free and provided with a modest income\u201d.<\/p>\n
Judge McFadzean said that the wife, who she described as \u201cpersonable and charming, albeit with limited employment history\u201d, might be able to find a job over the next few years might be able to find employment of sorts for the next few years to \u201cease the pain of the step down in her receipts\u201d.<\/p>\n
\n\tRelated<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A seven-year divorce battle in the Royal Court has laid bare a marriage fuelled by inherited millions, a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":359303,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[84,118237,59,8934,56,54,55],"class_list":{"0":"post-359302","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-business","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-expresso-jsy","10":"tag-gb","11":"tag-premium","12":"tag-uk","13":"tag-united-kingdom","14":"tag-unitedkingdom"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/359302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=359302"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/359302\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/359303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=359302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=359302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=359302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}