Morning:
3°c
Precious is a new-style weepie but one that is much more bracing than depressing
BBC accused of having a 'culture of secrecy' after it refused to reveal how much it pays its top presenters and stars
More...
Mucca's brief wins wife £48m payout
Last updated at 11:20am on 24.05.07
Wife of 28 years: Beverley Charman at court today
The housewife who won more than £48million in England's biggest ever contested divorce payout said today: "I know it's a huge sum but it's fair."
Three Appeal Court judges found that the ex-wife of insurance magnate John Charman is entitled to the money in a landmark ruling.
Today's judgment confirms London as "the divorce capital of the world" and could lead to even more "divorce tourism" by disgruntled exwives seeking payouts.
The case has been watched closely by lawyers currently negotiating the settlement following the marriage break-up of Sir Paul Mc Cartney and Heather Mills. Leading divorce QC Martin Poynter who represented Ms Charman, of Sevenoaks in Kent, is also acting for Ms Mills.
The Appeal Court judges acknowledged the dangers and called for a thorough review of the law. But outside court, Ms Charman, 53, insisted she deserved every penny.
"I acknowledge the sum is huge by any standards, but the Court of Appeal has decided it fairly reflects the contributions made by John and me during our 28-year marriage," she said.
Mr Charman, 54, was not present for today's hearing but his legal team pledged to attempt to take the fight to the House of Lords for a final decision.
Mr Charman built up a major career in the City before establishing his own business, which created the family wealth of £131million.
The couple married in 1976, divorced in 2005 and have two grown-up children.
The key dispute concerns the £70million trust fund Mr Charman had set up for his children in Bermuda, where he is now based.
Reader views (14)
I do wish people would read stuff. The Family wealth is £131m of which £70m is in a Trust fund for their two children which he can't touch! My maths says that leaves £61m for distribution between them and if she gets £48m that is rather more than half and a bit unfair wouldn't you say? The case apparently revolved around the trust fund and it looks to me as if their Honourable Judgeships have done what only they can do and not what any normal, sensible person would do in splitting the available money straight down the middle which would still laeve both of them with an obscene amount.
- John, Strood, Kent
Someone give me her number. I want to take her to dinner!
- Jay, London
Funny how neatly we seem to be partitioned on this on gender lines! I think it's a question to anyone, how much of one's wealth would they think it fair to give to their partner, after a long marriage, if one had generated the cast majority of that wealth? My personal view is that this is excessive, but that's just personal. The courts seem to distinguish between length of marriage and how much of the wealth was accumulated prior, which to me seems to defeat the "gold-digger" allegation. On the other hand, we will inevitably end up with either pre-nups or lots of unmarried rich people, since it seems to me although people in general may think the rules are fair, wealthy individuals will not. I invite people to peer into their soul and say honestly their decision to marry someone poorer would not be influenced by these kind of decisions.
- Alan, London
Bye bye marriage. Men getting divorced in future are better off leaving the UK, the law as it stands is utterly out of control. This ruling ignores the fact that a large chunk of the money sits in a Trust fund for the children so she taking money from her kids to fund her unbelieveable greed. This could further encourage men to simply hide the money and to hell with the ex-wives and their greedy lawyers.
- James, London
He's still got £83 million. What the hell is he complaining about. Give me a hundredth of that and I'd be happy for life.
- Tobin, Andover
Why does the fact that she's received a large divorce payout automatically mean that she's bled him dry? Although a massive amount of money by most people's standards - and she herself admits that it’s 'a huge sum'- it's not even half of the total family wealth. I have a sneaking suspicion that he’s not heading for the breadline just yet! I wonder what enabled him to develop up a major career in the City and then run a successful business in order to accumulate this wealth - the fact that he had a wife taking care of his domestic affairs and raising his children for 28 years, perhaps? If she'd spent 28 years as his business partner and their business relationship ended, I don’t think that many people would begrudge her receiving a substantial amount of the money that she'd helped to generate.
- Tanya, London
Ben - your comments are appalling and reflect an awful bitterness / resentment towards women in general. Mrs Charman's morality is not in question here - the fairness of the award is. After 28 years of marriage I suspect that it is - Mr Charman has by no means been "bled dry" with 2/3 of his fortune still in tact!
- Carol, Richards Bay, South Africa
Whilst £48m does seem like a lot of money, if you take his £131m fortune, she was awarded just over 1/3 of this. For 28 years, that doesn't seem too harsh. If you take a couple who were married for the same length of time with a fortune of £100k and either the wife or HUSBAND was awarded £33k, that wouldn't seem so bad now would it? Kyle, there was a case recently where a husband had taken his rich wife to the cleaners and with more and more woman earning big bucks in the city, it's only a matter of time until such cases become increasingly popular.
- Lisa, London
It's a huge sum, but it's still less than half! So it probably is fair.
- Dave B, United Kingdom
Clearly this woman has no morals. Even if she’s managed to bleed her husband dry now, I have no doubt that karma will catch up with her and she’ll get what she deserves.
- Ben, Notting Hill
Good on her for ditching her husband, let this be inspiration for all us ladies out there who are fed up with having to work so hard. There’s hope out there.
- Katie, UK
Fair dos, they were married for 28 years. In this case, the husband didn't stand a chance of winning the appeal based on previous case law, but with the amount of money at stake, he was probably right to try.
- Brian, Telford
Yet again a woman bleeds (quite literally, in this case) a man dry because of a divorce. When do we ever hear of a man doing this to a woman with loads of money? Do women even have loads of money? She should never have received this extortionate amount!
- Kyle, Wood Green
After nearly thirty years of service to this insurance man, 48 million is ample. How many of you out there would give that large portion of your lives for that sum of money, if it was offered to you? Hardly any, methinks. She deserves everything she gets. Women are far too underrated as housewives and child carers - men don't stand a chance against them doing the same thing.
- Justin Manly, South London
