In this case, the couple had been divorced for 10 years and the ex-husband believed that his ex wife had accepted a financial settlement.  Graysons’ family solicitor, Nicola Cancellara, says that this scenario is not uncommon and she has dealt with a number of cases where clients have come to her for help as they had thought that finances had been agreed upon separation, only to find some years later that their spouses want to claim more.  Usually these cases arise where the former spouse has entered into a new relationship and the claiming ex has found out about it, or they get pressure from a partner, family and friends.

The case to hit the headlines now is that of Nicola and Glen Briers, who were married in 1984, separated in 2002 and divorced in 2005.  At the time of the divorce, Mr Briers’ business – a fashion chain that includes the well known brand, Lambretta – was turning over £1 million a year.  By the time Mrs Briers brought the claim it had increased to £30 million.  When the couple divorced, Mr Briers gave his wife £150,000 to pay off the mortgage, allowed her keep the former family home worth £700,000 and receive an annual income of £10,000 plus child maintenance for their 3 children.  In return Mr Briers kept the business.  As far as Mr Briers was concerned they had made a ‘verbal agreement’ that the settlement would be on a ‘clean break’ basis.

However when Mrs Briers’ new relationship broke down she went to the divorce courts and asked for more.  Last year family Judge Mark Rogers found Mrs Briers deserved a whopping £2.7 million of Mr Briers’ fortune, finding that the business should be treated as an ‘undivided asset’.

Mr Briers has appealed to the Court of Appeal, claiming the settlement was unfair and left his former wife in a position which was ‘excessively favourable’.  Indeed at the time of the divorce the matrimonial assets could be seen to have been split equally between the parties.

Mr Briers’ legal representative, Jonathan Cohen QC, made the following arguments:

• That it was unfair for his client to share the fruits of his hard work a decade after the split.
• That his ex-wife’s involvement in was business was negligible.
• That Judge Rogers was wrong in his decision in that “the business was not an undivided asset” in that the “total assets had been divided with the husband receiving the company and the wife the bulk of the remaining assets”.
• That the judge had provided Mrs Briers with a “windfall which has no logical justification”.
• That a period of 8 years had elapsed (2005 – 2013) where no complaint had been made by Mrs Briers about the provision made.

Justin Warshaw QC, for Mrs Briers, argued:

• That there was no legal settlement between the parties and as such the payout of £2.7 million should be allowed.
• That, at the time of separation, she was put under pressure by her husband stating “the whole process was not negotiable ……..but dictated by the husband” and that she was bullied and felt intimidated by her husband.
• That at no time did she accept the proposal, as she would not do so without full financial disclosure.

The appeal judges have reserved their decision and are to give their ruling at a later date.

Upon leaving court Mr Briers said “I didn’t think she’d do anything like this years on”.   These are words which, as a family solicitor, Nicola has heard many times.  If anything is to be learnt by this story, it’s the importance of having a financial agreement properly recorded by way of either a separation agreement or by order of the court.  Without it  you run the risk of your former spouse making a financial claim many years after you divorce.

You can find out more about financial settlements upon divorce on our website.