Some rich men’s ex-wives should be ashamed of themselves – story 1 of 2 on this theme, second to follow shortly.
A piece published online by The Times three hours ago:
Janie Martin’s life seemed like a fairytale in 1985. The factory shopfloor worker enjoyed a whirlwind romance with her multi-millionaire boss and they were married four years later.
The couple enjoyed a £5 million listed property in Somerset, a £10 million house in Hampshire and a home on King’s Road, Chelsea. Yet their story lacked a happy ending as they split up in 2015.
Last year a divorce judge awarded Mrs Martin £73 million from the family fortune of £182 million. That was not enough, she claimed, and went back to court for another £17 million.
Today the Court of Appeal rejected her case and told her she would have to wait longer for her money, giving Rupert Martin three more years to settle up with his ex-wife.
Mr Martin owns Dextra Group, a lighting manufacturing business. He spends £1 million a year on a motor racing team in which his son, Alex, 30, is a driver, and recently spent over £5 million on a shooting estate in Somerset.
The court heard that when the couple met Mr Martin was still married to his second wife. He divorced in 1987 and married Mrs Martin, who had also been married once before. For 29 years the couple enjoyed a “vast fortune”.
Martin Pointer, QC, for Mrs Martin, argued that Mr Justice Mostyn, the High Court judge, made a mistake in the valuation of the company when the couple’s relationship started in earnest. Mr Pointer said that the value was just £1.6 million rather than £44 million. He also argued that the original judge had been wrong not to factor in that Mr Martin only owned half the business in 1986. Those calculations would raise the pay-out due to Mrs Martin by £17 million, he said.
Lord Justice Moylan rejected those arguments, saying the divorce judge had rightly refused to take that path. “He did not consider that those approaches fairly and realistically reflected the true potential of the company” when the couple married or the “true present value of what the husband brought into the marriage,” Lord Justice Moylan said.
He said Mr Justice Mostyn’s decision on how to split the money “resonates with fairness” because “it takes an overarching view of the weight to be attributed to the husband’s contributions to the business throughout its existence.”
Never forget the golden rule, men shouldn’t marry.
You can subscribe to The Times here.
If everyone who read this gave us just £3.00 – or even better, £3.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.