Are Britain's divorce settlements fair?

For many years, wives who suffered the experience of an often painful divorce were given scant recompense for their contribution to the marriage, despite being wife, house-minder, mother and all the intangible unpaid qualities that any woman brings to a relationship. In the 80s and 90s the proverbial worm began to turn and legal changes were made which recognised the unfairness of the system and strove to improve the legal settlements given to a divorced woman.

This came to a head in the landmark case of White V White in 2000, where a precedent was set that a wife was entitled to 50% of the assets of the relationship, regardless of who had earned the money and such has been the basis of our legal judgments ever since.

I am compelled to ask, as has Mr. John Charman, the former head of Axis Capital Holdings, whether we have now reached a position which has gone too far the other way. Mr. Charman was ordered, two years ago, to pay his wife, Beverley, £48 million as a divorce settlement. This is the highest divorce settlement in British history. The couple had been married for 26 years and had two children and it was clear that Beverley Charman had been a committed wife and mother until the time Charman met another woman and told her the marriage was over. He offered her £20 million but she fought for 50% of his assets using White v White as precedent, and the Law Lords agreed with her.





Now I don't know Mr. Charman but from what I read he is a nasty piece of work, certainly hard and aggressive in the way he does business and I have no real sympathy with the monied rich. I do have concerns however, on a point of principle, for this 50/50 split on the ending of a relationship. John Charman has challenged the courts award saying surely £20 million is enough for anyone to live out their lives in luxury, that despite his wife being a fundamental and key element in their partnership it was he who had the business brain, took the risks and made the money. He has also claimed that if the award is confirmed he will have to sell off part of his business as much of his assets are contained therein and are not liquid.

I do have some sympathy with his argument and I do think if we have reached the point where a wife, no matter how loving and supportive she has been, can walk off with 50% of the joint assets of a relationship, much of which she had no practical hand in generating, then we are creating an opposite injustice to the one we have tried to rectify.

Another couple watching developments in this saga very closely are Sir Paul and Heather Mills McCartney. Sir Paul must be hoping that 'Can't buy me love' is very much reflected in the decision of the appeal court.