The wife who secured the biggest divorce award in British legal history backed the Court of Appeal judges over the need for prenuptial agreements.

Beverley Charman, 54, told The Times: “I would definitely have one now and I would advise my sons to have them. But at the time we married we had no expectation of money.”

And while she may have secured a £48 million divorce settlement, Mrs Charman was not celebrating after her victory yesterday. Speaking at the offices of Manches, her lawyers in London, she said: “I am just relieved it is all over. Of course I am pleased with the result but it has been an incredibly difficult and painful 3½ years.”

Mrs Charman was giving her first interview since the break-up of her marriage to the insurance magnate John Charman, whom she met when they were at school.

Expert View

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

Frances Hughes

• More

• Post a comment

Related Links

• Divorce overhaul calls after record £48m award

• The 20 most expensive divorces of all time

She has faced accusations of being greedy after turning down her husband’s offer of £20 million from his £131 million assets. But she said that the judges’ ruling was a “fair reflection of the contribution that we each made during a long marriage”.

She added: “I don’t regard myself as a greedy person and from the very beginning I always said I don’t want to take him for every penny – just what is fair. I never wanted to achieve a result perceived to be greedy or avaricious.”

She also conceded that her former husband should have the larger share. “He made a contribution that was greater than mine, which was why I conceded that he retain more of the assets which we built up together.”

The issue, however, was how those assets be apportioned. The reason she says that she rejected his £20 million offer was that it was based on the law before the landmark ruling in White v White in 2000, which created the “equality” principle.

“I was advised that if I had accepted that, it would be turning back the clock to when the courts decided on the basis of need, rather than reflecting the different roles that we both had within the marriage of nearly 28 years,” she said.

The couple met in the sixth form in Rochester, Kent. After a five-year engagement they married. “So we have known each other for 32 years – all of my adult life.”

Her husband, who is now based in Bermuda, had been away much of the time. “When we married I worked for six years [in the Civil Service] and then when we had a family we decided I would give up my career to bring up the children while John continued working. Otherwise neither of us would have been there for the children.” She recalls putting a map on the wall for their children with markers “to show where Daddy was”.

Mrs Charman, who sits as magistrate in Kent, said she was not bitter about giving up her career. “You accept the roles you have within the marriage.”

Mr Charman made a fortune in the 1990s during the Gulf War, offering war risk insurance, and then sold his Charman Underwriting Agencies for £350 million. He later set up Axis Capital, a Bermuda-based reinsurance and insurance business with offices in London, Dublin and New York.

Mrs Charman accepts that the couple have enjoyed a high standard of living. “I don’t regard myself as extravagant but, yes, we have enjoyed a good standard of living, eating out at good restaurants and so on.”

The two boys, Nicholas and Michael, are now 24 and 20. They had been loyal to both parents and tried not to take sides, she said. “But it has been difficult for them to see their parents lives and marriage displayed publicly.”

Mrs Charman now only communicates with her husband occasionally and by e-mail.

He said . . .

“ English family law is in a mess. It is muddled, incomprehensible and lags behind that in most other countries”

“ There is a genuine sense of grievance among rich husbands that they married, in this case in 1976, with the law as it then was, and are now facing a sea-change wrought in 2000” [quoting Mr Justice Wilson]

“ 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 cases”

“ 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 said . . .

“ I don’t regard myself as a greedy person and from the very beginning I always said I don’t want to take my exhusband for every penny. I just want what is fair”

“ It has never been my wish to achieve a result that could be perceived to be greedy or had avaricious aspirations . . . and I always conceded that John’s contribution was greater than mine, which is why I conceded that he retain more of the assets which we had built up together. The question was how to quantify that special contribution”

“ 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”

“ It is not a day for celebration. It has been an incredibly sad time . . . I now just want to get on with my life and I would wish the same for John”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• UK legal industry faces loss of 10,000 lawyers
• Curious case of chocolate bunny trademark
• Divorce settlement granted after 22 years