Wyatt v Vince
There is no time limit on an application for financial remedy after divorce, so a former wife could apply decades later, although the delay would be relevant to the amount awarded.
Facts
Ms Wyatt and Mr Vince were married in 1981 and divorced in 1992. They were both poor at the time, and Ms Wyatt did not pursue her claim for financial provision. Mr Vince later became a multi millionaire through a green energy business, while Ms Wyatt remained poor and brought up their son. In 2011, nearly 20 years after the divorce, she applied for financial provision. Mr Vince applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process, and the Court of Appeal struck it out.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court allowed Ms Wyatt's appeal. Lord Wilson said that there is no time limit for an application for financial provision after divorce, and that the court could not strike out a claim merely because it seemed weak. Ms Wyatt had a legally recognisable claim, based on her contribution to bringing up their son. However, the long delay, and the fact that the wealth had been acquired after the divorce, would be relevant to how much she would get. The case was sent back for a hearing, and it shows the importance of obtaining a clean break order on divorce.
Related cases on financial remedies on divorce
- Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20
- Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246
- Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 WLR 1410
- Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849
- Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2012] Fam 1
- Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 AC 618
- Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38, [2018] 3 WLR 1170
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 AC 534
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
