Hedge Fund Manager's Argument Significant For Wealthy Couples

A ruling could be made as early as this week on the case of Chris Hohn, the hedge fund manager whose high-profile split with his wife may change the way that the courts interpret UK divorce law in a particular set of circumstances.

Bloomberg reports that Mr Hohn and wife Jamie Cooper-Hohn's dispute over their £820 million estate, as well as the £2.7 billion charitable foundation they created together, could become the UK's largest divorce settlement. Any ruling could have implications for future cases involving super-rich couples.

Central to the case is Mr Hohn's argument that his financial talents constituted a "special contribution" to the marriage, and his wife should therefore receive only a 25 per cent share of their joint assets instead of the 50 per cent she is seeking.

It is believed that if the "special contribution" argument is successful, it will become a much more common feature of disputes between wealthy couples where one party has made much greater sums than are typical within his or her industry. Although similar arguments have been made in past cases, this instance is significant due to the amount of money involved.

Lawyers said the case may also lead to greater interest in pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements, particularly among those working in the financial sector.

Expert Opinion

Much of this relates to how courts determine the division of assets, particularly in disputes regarding how you quantify the contributions to a relationship. <br/> <br/>“Generally, the courts tend not to discriminate between roles that the respective spouses fulfil. So, the breadwinner should not receive a higher proportion of the wealth than the homemaker purely because they are the higher earner. The contributions of the party who has taken a parenting or supportive role are equally valued. <br/> <br/>"This enables judges to take a bespoke approach but many people feel that this means there is a lack of clarity as to the likely outcome of their case, especially if they do not have the benefit of legal advice and representation."