There’s nothing better than a good divorce story (except perhaps a fracas over the lack of a hot dinner) to put the media into melt-down. Yesterday was one of those days when the Supreme Court confirmed that Kath Wyatt is properly entitled to pursue a claim for financial provision against her ex-husband, Dale Vince, notwithstanding the fact that they are reported to have separated and then divorced some 30 and 23 years ago respectively.
Despite speculation in the press, she is, of course, unlikely to receive a substantial share of the millions, all accumulated by Mr Vince since their separation and, therefore, falling outside of the definition of matrimonial assets.
The case, however, serves as a salutary reminder of the importance of dealing with financial issues at the time of a divorce. Even when matters are amicable and a couple agrees that there are to be no further claims by either of them against the other, a consent order dismissing those claims is needed. I have known clients who have baulked at the additional cost of obtaining such but, as I have inevitably explained, it is like paying for an insurance policy. In so many cases the risk can even lie in the potential cost and aggravation of a subsequent claim rather than the outcome; far better, therefore, to tie up all loose ends and close the door with a clean break order where possible.