Divorced 20 years ago?

[SueEllen]

So if the basis for splitting the Wonga is she helped?

If the partnership didn't exist until after the money was made. The spouse married into money and got a significant improvement in life style why on divorce should they get anything? After I stay in a hotel I don't go back to my house and demand the hotel send over a maid to clean my room.

If the money is made well after their split why should the spouse get anything?


If the spouse remarried why should she get anything?

It's not always "she" who gets the dough. I know 3 women who have had to split their assets in a similar fashion. Then again if you get married young anything can happen....

Your argument using the hotel example isn't valid as marriage is valued as more than a business transaction.

In regards to your final two questions it should be a case by case basis.

I actually don't know how she helped him. If she can show she provided some help to make him a millionaire yes she will have a claim.

[MicrosoftBob]

It's not always "she" who gets the dough. I know 3 women who have had to split their assets in a similar fashion. Then again if you get married young anything can happen....

Your argument using the hotel example isn't valid as marriage is valued as more than a business transaction.

In regards to your final two questions it should be a case by case basis.

I actually don't know how she helped him. If she can show she provided some help to make him a millionaire yes she will have a claim.

Shouldn't the fact that he was successful only after becoming divorced, rather imply she was holding back his potential

[SueEllen]

Shouldn't the fact that he was successful only after becoming divorced, rather imply she was holding back his potential

The facts will come out when her claim is considered in properly in court.

[OwlHoot]

I'd be very interested to know if there was a jury in this case, as it reeks of politicized pandering to ultra-feminist politicians.

Any guy relaxed about abolishing juries better hope that if it happens they are never accused of rape, because if so they would be done for by judges eager to demonstrate their politically correct feminist-friendly credentials.

Same principle applies to anyone accused of racism, or any other political hot button. In the absence of the common sense of a jury, many judges could be coerced into finding guilt from the most tenuous evidence, and imposing disproportionate penalties.

[Ticktock]

I'd be very interested to know if there was a jury in this case, as it reeks of politicized pandering to ultra-feminist politicians.

Any guy relaxed about abolishing juries better hope that if it happens they are never accused of rape, because if so they would be done for by judges eager to demonstrate their politically correct feminist-friendly credentials.

Same principle applies to anyone accused of racism, or any other political hot button. In the absence of the common sense of a jury, many judges could be coerced into finding guilt from the most tenuous evidence, and imposing disproportionate penalties.

You seem to completely misunderstand how strongly the judiciary react against political interference on the whole.

[vetran]

It's not always "she" who gets the dough. I know 3 women who have had to split their assets in a similar fashion. Then again if you get married young anything can happen....

Your argument using the hotel example isn't valid as marriage is valued as more than a business transaction.

In regards to your final two questions it should be a case by case basis.

I actually don't know how she helped him. If she can show she provided some help to make him a millionaire yes she will have a claim.

in this case its a she, if you look at my examples i made them asexual.

If marriage break up is not treated as a business transaction it can't be just.

If you cannot establish what happens broadly in each case it will just make rich lawyers.

[vetran]

You seem to completely misunderstand how strongly the judiciary react against political interference on the whole.

yes they make judgements based on the political landscape not the facts creating extremely poor precedents.

[Platypus]

If i read the article correctly, she won the right to make a claim, and not the claim itself. Now she needs to make a claim that might be dismissed or a nominal sum awarded, like the Judge said it won't be anywhere near the £1.9m the greedy b**ch and her greedy b**ch lawyer demand.

Exactly. Lots of people seem to have missed this.

I'd be very interested to know if there was a jury in this case

See above. It wasn't a case. It was a legal question and the judge rules that she could make a claim.

[tractor]

.....

Exactly. Lots of people seem to have missed this.





See above. It wasn't a case. It was a legal question and the judge rules that she could make a claim.

And it was the supreme court and as such there would be no jury, it is a civil matter not a criminal matter.

[BrilloPad]

I'd be very interested to know if there was a jury in this case, as it reeks of politicized pandering to ultra-feminist politicians.

Oddly I have found in my dealings with the family courts that the younger female judges are far better than older male ones. They seem to "get" that for women to have equality in the workplace that men need to have it in the home.

If i read the article correctly, she won the right to make a claim, and not the claim itself. Now she needs to make a claim that might be dismissed or a nominal sum awarded, like the Judge said it won't be anywhere near the £1.9m the greedy b**ch and her greedy b**ch lawyer demand.

The case is very clear cut. He made his money after getting rid of her. I bet she stopped him seeing the kid as well to punish him - like so many wimmin do.

A friend went to court pre 1987 and was told your wife wont let you see your child so you dont have to pay for your child.