The Telegraph and the Mirror have recently reported a divorce case involving a disabled Afghan veteran who is getting divorced from his wife. There have been slightly hysterical headlines along the lines of “Disabled war vet may lose £1.1 million compensation in divorce”. At first sight, this sounds wrong. However, when you look at the facts more closely, the case is nowhere as simple as it look at first sight.
The husband has spent the bulk of his compensation building a home that is suitably equipped for his needs. He has about £200,000 left and says, not unreasonably, that he needs that to meet the cost of his care for the reminder of his life. His wife, again not unreasonably, says that she wants £185,000 so that she can buy a home for herself, and most importantly for their children.
This case is a prime example of why resolving financial disputes can be very difficult. All cases involve striking a balance between achieving a fair outcome and meeting the parties’ and their children’s needs. The children’s needs come first.
Now I don’t know all of the facts involved in this case, I only know what I have read in the papers. However, from the outside I can see a number of issues that may need to be resolved in order to find the right outcome.
What do the parties actually need? Is this house suitable for his needs or could he be accommodated in a suitable equipped smaller property and free up some equity for the wife? How much does the wife need to buy a new home for herself and the children? How big a mortgage can she raise?
Contributions are relevant. Clearly he has made an enormous “contribution” for want of a better word. He paid a terrible price serving his country and the apparently generous compensation is designed to meet his needs and to reflect his sacrifice. However, his wife will no doubt argue that she made a contribution too, perhaps of a non-financial nature, and arguably in particular during the years after he was injured when I suspect life was incredibly challenging.
There are also “conduct” issues; there is a suggestion that the wife mishandled his finances so that money was wasted initially buying an unsuitable property which had to be demolished. The claim seems to be that she made some poor choices, not that she was in any way dishonest. To what extent should be taken into account? My gut feeling is that it is unlikely to make much difference. I doubt that the court would penalise her (and indirectly the children) by giving her less as a result. In my experience the court avoids a forensic approach as it has neither the time nor the inclination to get bogged down on these points. As a district judge once said to me in court “The court will not rummage around in the jumble of the marriage in the attic.”
26th September 2015.