Last updated on August 13th, 2019 at 08:47 am
Bradie Pell, family law solicitor
In 2015, Randy Work, a private equity executive who worked at American company, Lone Star, was ordered to pay his ex-wife, Mandy Gray approximately £72.5 million, but he disagreed with the decision. He said that ‘as she had not accepted his settlement offer of around £47m in instalments…. apart from her keeping £5 million of her own assets he was not going to pay her a penny more.”
Stay at home ex wife
He said that his wife had stayed at home, raising their children during their 20 year marriage, whilst he earned the money, without her help, claiming his “quality of genius” through wealth creating skills allowed him to do that and make a special financial contribution to the marriage. She had given up her job to become the homemaker.
The couple, who were both born and raised in USA but settled in London in 2008, have been in a huge battle, which has ended up costing just over £3 million. Judge, Mr Justice Holman, who made the ruling in 2015 disagreed with Randy’s description of ‘genius’, saying that the word is ‘overused’, and that part of his success was due to being ‘in the right place at the right time’. He said the couple had been ‘two strong and equal partners’ during their 20-year relationship and indicated that Mandy’s willingness to move to Japan, where they lived from 1998 to 2005, to accommodate her husband’s work, was part of the reason that her husband was able to earn the fortune. The three Court of Appeal judges agreed saying that Randy had failed to prove Judge Holman’s decision was wrong.
Contribution not always financial
Family law solicitor, Bradie Pell, says “This case, which is an important one for stay-at-home mothers, shows that “contribution” to a marriage is not always financial. It is a long-standing and embedded principal that being a homemaker (whether you are male or female) is a job in itself (and often less well paid!) and staying at home looking after the children, cleaning, cooking and entertaining etc. is as important a contribution as that made by the ‘breadwinner’. Fairness is central to all financial splits in divorce, meeting each of the couple’s needs, including taking account of the children and their needs. The case simply re-affirms the approach the courts have taken for many years, with a 50/50 spit being the starting point – and in this case the finish point too. That being said, there is rarely such a thing anymore as a “meal ticket for life” as the courts expect each spouse to achieve financial independence where possible.
