An overhaul of the law on how to split a divorcing couple’s assets was urged by senior judges yesterday as they ruled that a woman can keep her £48 million award – the biggest ordered by British courts in legal history.

Three appeal judges headed by Sir Mark Potter, the most senior family judge, also signalled support for legally binding prenuptial contracts now that London is said to be “the divorce capital of the world for aspiring wives”.

Their calls for reform came as they threw out a challenge to the £48 million award by John Charman, nicknamed the “King of the London insurance market”, in a ruling that confirms that the “equality principle” should govern the splitting of a couple’s assets.

Mr Charman, 54, had challenged the sum awarded by a High Court judge, saying his wife Beverley’s awarded share of his £131 million fortune – 36 per cent – was “grotesque and unfair”. He said yesterday that he would appeal to the House of Lords.

Expert View

Charman continues the uncertainty and Gordon Brown must take all this more seriously

Frances Hughes

• More

• Post a comment

Related Links

• ‘I didn’t want every penny - just what’s fair’

He added that his massive contribution to the family fortune – built up from almost nothing – meant that he should receive a larger slice of the total assets, which were assessed at £131 million. He had offered his wife £20 million, “an enormous sum”, he said after the ruling yesterday.

“I have already provided her with a house, made substantial provision for our sons and funded accommodation for her parents and simply do not accept I should pay her £48 million. My offer to my former wife was an enormous sum, which is accepted to far exceed anything she might need. She can live off the interest for the rest of her life without even touching the capital. Why is it right that I have to destabilise my business and career to provide her with a great deal more money?”

He called on Gordon Brown to make it a priority with the new Ministry of Justice to review the law on the splitting of a couple’s assets on divorce.

But Sir Mark, president of the High Court Family Division, giving the appeal ruling, said that Mr Charman’s special contribution had been taken into consideration when the award was made. He said: “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.”

And the judges criticised Mr Charman’s pursuit in the courts, saying: “The husband’s indignation has an intensity which has rendered this litigation hard-fought at every turn and which we fear will continue to do so until whatever is properly payable to the wife under English law has been paid in full.”

The head of the Axis insurance group argued that Mr Charman’s £20 million offer was more than adequate and a £70 million family trust should not have been taken into account when the total assets of the marriage were assessed. But the appeal court agreed that the trust fund was controlled by him.

Mr Charman had described Mrs Charman, 54, from whom he was divorced in 2005, as a housewife. The couple had met when both aged 18 and married five years later.

Her lawyers argued that the House of Lords had laid down guidelines in previous divorce rulings in big money cases that family assets should generally be divided equally between the breadwinner and homemaker.

But his lawyers told the appeal judges – who also included Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wilson – that the High Court judge was wrong in the way he divided the assets of their marriage last year. They said the judge should have worked out his and her needs, and then given most of the surplus to Mr Charman because he created the wealth by becoming one of the leading figures in the insurance industry.

Mrs Charman, in a statement read out by her lawyer on the steps of the Royal Court of Justice in London, 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.

“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.”

Mr Charman, who was not in court, was refused permission to take his case to the House of Lords for a final appeal but can apply to the law lords directly.

Payment of the money was suspended pending a result of any appeal. Legal fees, which will fall to Mr Charman, have already totalled nearly £5 million – an amount he has described as “obscene”.

In their ruling the appeal judges acknowledged that the law needed clarifying, particularly in light of the need for more harmony with Europe and “the fact that our law has so far given little status to prenuptial contracts”.

Sir Mark acknowledged that the result of recent emphasis by the courts on the principle of equality in divorce settlements was “to raise the aspirations of the claimant hugely”. The first of these settlements was White v White, in 2000, where the wife established the “yardstick of equality” with her former husband because she had made an equal contribution to their farming business.

Sir Mark said: “In big money cases the White factor has more than doubled the levels of award and it has been said by many that London has become the divorce capital of the world for aspiring wives.”

Claimants were now actively trying to use London as the forum for their divorce settlements, he said, naming the case of Moore v Moore where £1.6 million had been spent on the wife’s attempt to have her case heard in London rather than Marbella in Spain.

Splitting assets

2003 Shan Lambert won an equal share of her husband Harry’s £20 million fortune from free newspapers when a court ruled that it was unacceptable to place greater value on the contribution of the breadwinner than that of the homemaker as a reason for departing from equality

2005 Sir Martin Sorrell was ordered to pay his ex-wife nearly £30 million but court ruled that he was an exceptionally talented businessmen who generated a fortune for his family so his “special contribution” justified a departure from equality

2006 Law lords confirmed that a short marriage was no bar to an equal split of assets and Melissa Miller could keep £5 million of fund-manager husband Alan’s £17.5 million

2006 Julia McFarlane argues successfully that she should receive £250,000 a year from her husband’s future income for indefinite period

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure