$8m divorce case: Fresh bid to keep cash

The Thompson's fight over access to a $8m restraint of trade payment made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Photo / Marty Melville

Michael Thompson says it would be "extremely unfair" if he had to divide an $8 million restraint-of-trade payment equally with his ex-wife.

Thompson is making a fresh move to keep more than half of the payment, which the Supreme Court has ruled is relationship property.

"The restraint stopped me from working and earning money worldwide in an industry I knew and loved for 10 years. After 10 years I am now unemployable," Thompson said this morning.

"Other factors such as having to invest $12 million back into the company and work for over 8 years as an unpaid director are also relevant whilst my ex-wife had to give up nothing, invest nothing and was free to work if she so decided. In my view, it would be extremely unfair in these circumstances if the $8 million payment was to be divided equally between us," he said.

Michael and Christine Thompson divorced in 2005 and later agreed on how to split up their family home, a holiday home and $72 million from the sale of Nutra-Life Health and Fitness, a business which they established in 1984.

But the former husband and wife - who married in 1971 - were unable to agree on how to deal with an $8 million restraint-of-trade payment made to Michael Thompson in 2006 by the company that bought Nutra-Life.

After Christine Thompson made a claim in the Family Court that this payment was relationship property and should be divided equally, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which in March ruled in her favour.

The Supreme Court decided unanimously that the $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Michael Thompson was to be declared relationship property.

Given a general principle of relationship property is that it is shared equally, this meant Christine Thompson could be entitled to $4 million.

Christine Thompson's lawyer, Stephanie Ambler, said at the time that it had been a "pretty hard road" for her client but that she was driven by the desire to set the "law straight for other women".

Michael Thompson, on the other hand, said he felt the decision was "not only totally unjust but morally wrong on every principle and on the rules of fair play".

He has since made an application to the Family Court seeking unequal sharing of the restraint of trade payment in his favour.

While Christine Thompson confirmed she has applied to strike out that application she would not comment further.

Michael Thompson said this morning that the restraint of trade agreement was signed by him five years after the couple had separated and helped sell the Nutra-Life business "for an extremely good price".

"During the five years after separation I had worked my guts out, doubled the value of the business, sold it , and my ex-wife received an equal share, being some $35 million, which I always agreed to," he said.