Mrs Vindis’ late husband was Nigel Vindis, owner of car dealership chain the Vindis Group.  The couple separated in 2011 after a relationship lasting almost 40 years.  Mr Vindis left most of his millions to the couple’s two children, Gabriella (26) and Alexander (28).  The couple had not divorced but Mrs Vindis had filed for divorce after being separated for 2 years.

Unfair will – does it meet reasonable needs?

Mrs Vindis argues that the will was unfair to her and did not give her enough to meet her reasonable needs.  She says that the whole of the value of her late husband’s estate had been built up during the course of the marriage and that whilst she worked during the early years of the marriage, and undertook occasional tasks for the family business, she was for the largest part ‘wife, mother and homemaker’.

Would Mari Vindis have received half fortune in divorce?

Her barrister, David Rees, told the High Court that Mrs Vindis would have received roughly half the family wealth in divorce and that she should now receive £6m as opposed to the £36,000.  Effectively Mrs Vindis is asking a judge to ‘re-write’ her husband’s will which, if successful, will make legal history.

Regardless of their separation, had Mr Vindis still been alive, and Mrs Vindis made an application to court for a financial order, the court would have had regard to s.25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, with the starting point in any division being equal.    Indeed, since the ruling in White v White [2000], the division of assets in divorce has stopped being automatically weighted in favour of the breadwinner, with courts recognising the value of non-financial contributions towards the family and ensuring that this is reflected accordingly in the division of wealth and property.

Sisters seek part of estate

However, in this case, Mr Vindis’ sisters are also seeking millions from the estate claiming they were wrongly ‘excluded’ from the family business for years.  Their position is that the Vindis Group was founded in 1960 by their father, Frank Vindis, a former WWII Spitfire pilot, and the sisters say they were repeatedly promised an equal share.

Ian Clarke QC, for the sisters, says they want a multi-million pound payout ‘to give them some recompense for their unfair treatment in relation to the family business over the years‘. He argued that Mari would in fact have got less in a divorce than she received under her husband’s will.

In response, Mari Vindi’s barrister told the judge the sisters also made various allegations regarding his client’s conduct in the final years of the marriage and they pointed to her being a source of distress for Mr Vindis.  Claims that Mrs Vindis refutes.

The couple’s two children, Gabriella and Alexander, through their solicitor Sarah Bayliss, told the judge they are ‘supporting‘ their mother’s claim and ‘have a very close relationship‘ with her, but they hold concerns that if their mother and aunts’ claims on their father’s estate were to succeed, then his fortune would be ‘eroded‘ to the point where there would not be enough to provide for them as their father had wished.

Court’s decision awaited

Nicola Cancellara

Some will say the question for the court is a difficult one; others will disagree.  There will be those who are of the view that Mr Vindis’ will should stand and those who see it as being only right that Mari Vindis’ claim should be successful.

It remains to be seen as to whether Maris Vindi’s application succeeds in full or in part.  If successful it would be a landmark ruling and Mrs Vindis is now hoping that the High Court will make ‘legal history’ by rewriting her husband’s will in order to make ‘reasonable provision’ for her.  Whilst overturning a will can be said to be a rare occurrence, it is not unheard of.  In 2015 the Court of Appeal awarded a portion of a mother’s estate to her disinherited daughter, who, it could be said, contested the will on the ground that there was no ‘reasonable provision‘ for her needs, just like Mari Vindis.

The case has been adjourned for further evidence to be disclosed.  The return date is yet to be set.  We will report further in due course.

By Nicola Cancellara, family law solicitor.