KEY POINTS:
Millionaire businessman John Charman is likely to apply to the Law Lords in his bid to have the biggest divorce award in history overturned.
An appeal was thrown out of the Court of Appeal yesterday and Charman was told he still had to pay £48 million ($131 million) to his former wife.
The decision confirmed the High Court's ruling that Charman's initial payment of £20 million to his ex-wife Beverley was insufficient.
Charman said he was "profoundly disappointed" with the ruling at the Court of Appeal, describing the sum requested as "unfair and unreasonable".
The 54-year-old, who is head of the AXA Insurance group, later spoke out against the country's divorce law: "English family law is in a mess. It's muddled and incomprehensible and lags behind that in most other countries."
Charman argued that the rationality of the law broke down when one spouse had substantial wealth: "The presumption of sharing and equality may well be entirely right for those of more ordinary means or where both parties have worked throughout the marriage and contributed to it.
"Different rules are needed where all the extraordinary assets are earned by one of the couple, allowing the other simply to wait to claim an enormous proportion of it on divorce, without contributing materially to the acquisition of that wealth at all."
Sir Mark Potter, president of the High Court Family Division commented after the judgment that the Law Commission would need to review divorce law to bring it in line with the rest of the European Community. He said recent rulings had raised claimant aspirations "hugely", and that London was swiftly becoming "the divorce capital of the world for aspiring wives".
The overruling of the appeal raises questions about the financial value of the homemaker. Beverley Charman, 53, who lives in Sevenoaks in Kent, was a housewife for most of their 27-year marriage. In a statement issued by her legal team, she said: "I acknowledge that the sum awarded to me is huge by any standards, but the Court of Appeal has decided that it fairly reflects the contributions made by John and me during our marriage."
When the case was heard in the Court of Appeal in March, Mrs Charman's lawyers argued that her role in bringing up their two sons and keeping the house was "of equal value to the family as a whole".
But Mr Charman believes he played a far greater role in acquiring the £131 million family fortune than his former wife. Commenting on the proportion of his wealth that would be allocated to her, he said "she could live off the interest for the rest of her life without even touching the capital," adding, "Why is it right that I should have to destabilise my business to provide her with more money?"
Mr Charman was refused permission to appeal to the High Court but he can apply to the Law Lords directly. The £48 million payment is on hold until the outcome of any appeal is known.
- INDEPENDENT
