The Supreme Court has largely upheld a £5 million lump-sum provision for a wife in divorce proceedings where her husband's assets had a realisable value of about £14 million after liabilities, tax and other costs.
The parties, identified as D.T. and C.T., had substantial assets by the time their marriage was dissolved. The husband, a solicitor, held assets with a gross value of about £25 million. After borrowings, the figure was between £18 million and £19 million, while the estimated value after the costs and taxes involved in realising assets was about £14 million.
A High Court judge ordered the husband to pay his wife £5 million by instalments. He appealed, arguing that the provision was excessive.
Mr Justice Fennelly agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, except to the specific and limited extent identified in the Chief Justice's separate judgment. That limited modification is not described in the judgment supplied here.
A central issue was whether the court could consider wealth accumulated after the spouses separated. Much of the husband's wealth was represented by an office block acquired after they began living apart.
Fennelly J held that the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 did not exclude property merely because it had been acquired after separation. The court could examine the resources available when making proper provision at divorce, while weighing all the circumstances rather than applying an automatic formula for dividing assets.
The judgment placed particular emphasis on the wife's contribution to the family and to the foundations of her husband's career. She was a medical doctor but had limited her own career to care for the family. She had also performed unpaid secretarial work, cleaned her husband's office and provided office furniture during the early development of his practice.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entitled to take the husband's full resources into account and that the £5 million provision fell within the permissible range of judicial discretion.