Tonight:
5°c
Ex-wife told she can't 'claim more because of rising shares'
Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent25 Jun 2009
A wife today failed in her legal attempt to win more money from her divorced husband when his wealth suddenly soared.
Kim Walkden had agreed a £481,000 divorce deal with her husband Martin when his loss making timber products company Triesse was in the throes of a possible takeover.
She chose to take the cash rather than wait for the uncertainties of any takeover and the effect on the value of his shares.
But in October 2007 just months after the deal was struck his company was involved in a £3.7m takeover deal and the value of his shares quadrupled.
She went to court to ask for more but today three Appeal Court judges ruled she was not entitled to a penny more.
Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Elias, pointed out that the wife would not have expected a cut if her husband's fortune had equally suddenly plummeted.
Mr and Mrs Walkden, both 46 from Wetherby, West Yorkshire, had married in 1986 and have two children James now 21 and Charlotte , 15.
Their 20 year marriage ended in divorce in 2006 and, on top of the lump sum, Mrs.Walkden also receives £1,100 a month maintenance.
But following the unexpected boost in her ex-husband's wealth she came back to court to ask for a bigger capital sum.
She claimed that because of the rise in value of the company her share of the joint capital had dropped from 42 per cent to 18 per cent and his had risen from 58per cent to 82 per cent.
Her counsel Bruce Blair QC told the court that this was "unfair" and she was entitled to more.
But Nicholas Francis QC, representing Mr Walkden, said this case was merely the "flip side" of a landmark ruling - also by by Lord Justice Thorpe - in April.
Then the judge refused an attempt by City investor Brian Myerson to cut the £11.2 million he had agreed to pay his sculptor ex wife Ingrid because his fortune had shrunk in the credit crunch.
Said Mr Francis: "Like Myerson had no idea that the value of his shares were going to collapse, my client had no reason to believe that his company's trading performance was going to rise so significantly, to give rise to a significantly higher value of the shares."
The judges ruled that when the deal was struck in January 2007 each side must have taken a view as to the "unknown" and "highly speculative value of the shareholding" which was "duly reflected in the compromise agreement."
They said it would have still been open for Mrs Walkden to embark on the "less ambitious route" of seeking an increase in her monthly maintenance.
Mrs Walkden was "not obliged" to take the cash for the value of the shares when she did but "she chose to do so" and she should be "held to her bargain."
In a final twist Lord Justice Thorpe revealed that after being shown a draft of the judgment the couple had reached a compromise, rendering their formal ruling unnecessary.
However the issues were so important the judges handed down their judgment supporting the husband anyway.
The couple were not in court for the ruling.
Reader views (2)
Tough luck. She gambled and lost.
- Denise, Louisvile, USA, 25/06/2009 22:06
Report abuse
"pointed out that the wife would not have expected a cut if her husband's fortune had equally suddenly plummeted."
Good Lord, comment sense and high court judges are two things that very rarely mix, has anyone seen winged creatures of a porcine nature flying around?
- Bob, Cheam, 25/06/2009 13:19
Report abuse
