Morning:
13°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
London faces a wave of bus and Tube strikes that could cause chaos for millions of passengers as unions walkout over pay and conditions
More...
I'm worth it, says ex-wife after sealing record £48m divorce deal
Last updated at 23:07pm on 24.05.07The woman fighting a £48million divorce battle emerged victorious yesterday and declared: I'm worth it.
Beaming outside the Court of Appeal, Beverley Charman celebrated a ruling that she can keep her record payout.
Scroll down for more ...
Payout winner Beverley Charman says she's worth it
Her ex-husband, multi-millionaire insurance magnate John Charman, had challenged the award -the biggest in British legal history - to his former wife, describing her share in his fortune as "grotesque and unfair".
The tycoon insisted his massive contribution to the £131million family fortune entitled him to the lion's share and his wife should only receive £20million.
But three judges dismissed 54-year- old Mr Charman's appeal - leaving the man known as the "king of the London insurance market" ruling a missed opportunity to settle the divorce battle at a quarter of the cost.
For friends of Mrs Charman have revealed that the mother of two would have accepted £12million and avoided a much-publicised legal battle that ended in the record-breaking payment.
Scroll down for more ...
The Charmans' marital home in Sevenoaks
Lawyers for the head of the Axis global insurance company had argued that the £20million offer to the woman Mr Charman described as "a housewife" was more than adequate and a £70million family trust should not have been included in the family assets by the High Court judge who awarded the £48million.
But her legal team cited House of Lords guidelines in big-money divorce cases indicating that assets should generally be equally divided between the breadwinner and the homemaker.
The Appeal Court sided with Mrs Charman, saying: "Neither in its method nor in its result do we regard the judge's treatment of the husband's special contribution as vulnerable to appeal."
After her victory, Mrs Charman, also 54, 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 28-year marriage.
John Charman says he feels penalised
"The breakdown of our marriage has been a painful experience for all concerned. Our divorce proceedings started nearly three years ago.
"It has been a difficult time, not just for me but for our family.
"I have been particularly concerned for our sons who have had to bear the discussion in public of our lives, our marriage and our divorce.
"I am relieved that the appeal is over and I hope that John and I can now concentrate on building our new lives."
Mr Charman, a tax exile in Bermuda, was not in court and now intends to make a final appeal directly to the House of Lords.
In a statement, he said: "English family law is in a mess. It is muddled, incomprehensible and lags behind that in most other countries.
"It allows judges to make decisions on a variety of criteria, to the detriment of everyone involved, apart from those making claims against high net worth individuals and their lawyers, who are getting rich by capitalising on the uncertainties which prevail.
"With every big money case which comes before the courts at the moment different rules seem to be applied, depending on the judges involved.
"It's now all something of a lottery and has little to do with fairness or justice. Until the law changes those that follow me will suffer similarly."
The couple both came from modest backgrounds, met at school and married in 1976. They moved in with Mrs Charman's parents in Strood, Kent, before buying their first home for £15,000.
She gave up work to look after their two sons while Mr Charman built his fortune in the insurance market in the City.
He moved to Bermuda in 2003 and the couple divorced two years later.
Mrs Charman, a magistrate, still lives in the £3million marital home in Kent - targeted by thieves earlier this year who tied her up at gunpoint and stole jewellery worth £300,000.
Days after her ordeal friends said Mr Charman had offered his wife £6million when their marriage collapsed after she heard rumours he was dating a younger woman.
Her offer to settle for £12million was apparently turned down.
Mr Charman - who had tried to get divorced in Bermuda - said divorce cases where the wealth was created by one partner should be regarded differently from others.
He said unless reform is introduced "London will remain the divorce capital of choice for the spouses of all very successful people and our courts will continue to be clogged with these complex cases".
His call for reform was echoed by the three Appeal Court judges, who called on the Law Commission to review divorce settlement laws.
Reader views (8)
Get over it men. You shouldn't enter into an equal partnership then expect to run off and not have any responsibilities. Don't marry and don't have children if you don't want to be responsible for another person.
- Jake, London, UK
She earned $5,813.95 per hour of their marriage.
- Scott, Houston, TX
Unless I'm completely misreading it, she is getting way more than 36.5% of the assests. It states a family worth of 131 million, 70 million of which is a trust for the children. That leaves 61 million, of which she is getting 48 million, which is over 78% of the assests.
- Tom, Lima, OH
Wonder if she would like a toy boy?
- Cuddly Duddly, Cuffley, UK.
131 million - 70 million for their sons = 61 million
61 million - 48 million for the exwife = 13 million for the ex-husband
"Grotesque and unfair" sounds about right.
- Mr. J, Hanard
36.5% of joint assets awarded to Mrs Charman - that's £48 million as opposed to his share of £83 million. At least it is some way along the road to fairness.
- Christina Tait, Divorce Aid, London
The decision in Charman and Charman handed down by the Court of Appeal this morning is a common sense decison. It is an important ruling that will help family lawyers advising clients on the distribution of assets following the breakdown of a marriage. It will have an impact on future cases where there has been a long marriage and there is a surplus of assets once the family’s needs have been met. Frequently a wife argues that the assets should broadly be divided equally and the husband argues that once the wife’s needs are met, he should retain the balance as he was the one that created the wealth during the marriage.
The Appeal Judges have dismissed Mr Charman’s appeal that his wife should only receive £20 million of the family’s £131 million fortune. They have upheld the High Court’s decision last year to award Mrs Charman £48 million which is clearly a huge sum but still less than 50% of the assets because recognition was given to Mr Charman’s exceptional contribution to the accumulation of the family’s wealth.
It will give much-needed guidance to Family Lawyers and those going through a divorce that a settlement must be measured against the yardstick of equality except for in exceptional cases and that the wife’s award will not be restricted to her reasonable requirements.
- Richard J Philips, Matthew Arnold & Baldwin, Watford
There is a world of difference between this couple and the McCartneys and it's time the media was honest about it. They were married for decades and the money was amassed together. They built a family together and the wife was present when his fortune began. Paul was a rich man before he met Heather, they were only married 4 years and she said in many interviews she would not take money from him. Remember she's not a gold digger. So I'm guessing she will return any sum of money she gets.
- Jane, USA
