Ex-Wife Of Millionaire To Get £6m Following Judge’s Decision

A judge has ruled that the wife of a wealthy businessman should receive £6 million of his fortune after it was ruled that the pair had essentially continued to live as a married couple following their divorce in the 1990s.

The private trial at the Family Division of the High Court related to a couple who married in the late 1970s and divorced around 20 years later, but continued to live together under the same roof.

However, matters became complicated when the man met another woman five years ago and asked her to move into the marital home with her 12-year-old daughter.

Following the move, as well as the reported claim that the man asked his ex-wife if she would like to remain in the property as “some sort of housekeeper”, his ex-wife launched a legal battle for a share of his fortune.

While the husband argued that he and his partner reached an agreement she would only be entitled to a maximum of £3.4 million, Mr Justice Bodey said the woman should get £6.12 million of this fortune and added there was “no distinction” between their marriage and life after divorce.

Expert Opinion

While this case has caught attention due to some of the allegedly outrageous statements by the husband involved, it is actually a rather interesting ruling due to the court’s decision regarding how the fortune should be split. <br/> <br/>"Even though they had divorced, the judge took the couple’s decision to continue to live together into account when making a ruling on how assets should be split. <br/> <br/>"This is another example which shows the courts will consider all aspects of the specific circumstances of a case, including how couples have lived prior and after a divorce, before making a final decision. <br/> <br/>"It is another important sign that couples who are going through the process of separation should not expect courts to simply take a uniform or ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to making decisions on family law cases. Every aspect of a scenario will always be put under scrutiny."