Rachel Weldrake, Family Law Solicitor, Tayntons LLP, Gloucester on wife's award from husband's PI damages

9th February 2011 08:57

Tayntons LLP Family Law Specialist, Rachel Weldrake, follows a case reported by the Daily Mail on 8 February 2011. The facts of the case are straightforward. Mr Mansfield lost a leg and suffered serious spinal injuries when he was hit by a car in 1992. In 1998 Mr Mansfield received personal injury compensation in the sum of £500,000 which he invested to provide his only means of support. In 2002 Mr Mansfield met his wife and they subsequently married in 2003. The couple had two children (twins now aged 4) before separating in 2008. The care of the children is shared between the parents. When the wife left she took £50,000 of assets with her and has since purchased her own property for £226,000.

The question to be determined by the Court was whether the compensation monies should be ring fenced and preserved for their original purpose, i.e. to make the husband’s life more comfortable, or should the monies form part of the “matrimonial pot” for distribution within the divorce.

 The judge, sitting in Chelmsford County Court, decided that the money should be regarded as an asset of the marriage and went on to award just over half (£285,000) to the wife.  Not only have the Court of Appeal judges granted Mr Mansfield permission to appeal the decision they have also given a heavy indication as to how they view the case.

Lady Justice Black said “the only capital arises from the damages awarded and he met the wife in circumstances of enduring disability”. She added “the husband’s disabilities and amputated limb are an important factor in this case”.

 Lord Justice Thorpe said that “If we say ‘go away’ today and don’t grant permission to appeal, we are rubber stamping an injustice”.

 Rachel Weldrake says that financial provision law in England and Wales is a two-stage process.  Firstly, it is necessary to ascertain what the available property, income and resources are. In this case the County Court judge included the husband’s personal injury award.  Secondly, a decision has to be made as to how the property, income and resources should be distributed. This is done by application of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the relevant case law. Further when considering what orders to make, the court will have regard to the general principles of equality, need, sharing, compensation and fairness.

Generally the court will start by dividing the assets equally. The court will then look for reasons to depart from equality by reference to the checklist contained in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 with first consideration being given to the welfare of any minor children of the family under the age of 18.

It is the husband’s case that the County Court judge over prioritised the needs of the two normal healthy children. Alan Barton, representing the husband said “where a wife marries a husband who is seriously disabled and all the assets come from his damages, how far do his needs… have a priority over the ideal situation that the wife would like to be in?”.

However, whilst it is clear that this case raises an important point of principle that needs to be tested it may well be that the matter never gets to final hearing with the Court of Appeal judges urging the couple to try and settle their differences through mediation to avoid the “potentially enormous costs” of a full Appeal Court hearing. If the couple take this suggestion on board they may be able to settle out of court and this important point of principle left untested.

So, watch this space…………………

For advice on all family matters including financial settlements contact Rachel Weldrake, a member of Resolution and the Law Society’s accredited Family Law Panel on 01452 509878 or rachel.weldrake@tayntons.co.uk