Mother wins right to more
than half of ex-husband’s £500,000 crash compensation payout as ‘her needs are
greater’
A woman battling her
amputee ex-husband for the lion's share of his £500,000 compensation has won
the right to more than half his money in a landmark ruling.
The
Lord Justice Thorpe ruled
that the money Kevin Mansfield received in 1998 after losing a leg in a road
smash - five years before he met his former wife Cathryn
- ought to be 'available to all his family' and that the needs of his ex-wife
and their four-year-old twins were 'primary' and outweighed his own.
Landmark ruling: Amputee Kevin Mansfield lost his fight
to stop his ex-wife Cathryn from claiming over half
of his compensation after a judge ruled it to be an asset of their marriage
Mr
Mansfield, 41, now faces having to sell his home, a specially adapted bungalow
in
But Lord Justice Thorpe
left Mr Mansfield with a glimmer of hope by also
ordering that £95,000 of the money must be paid back to him by his ex-wife if
she remarries a partner who can support her, or in 14 years time, once their
children have grown up.
Mr
Mansfield was still a student when he lost a leg and suffered serious spinal
injuries when he was hit by a car in 1992. He met his ex-wife Cathryn five years after receiving £500,000 compensation in
1998.
The couple split up in
2008, soon after having twins, Carys and Corben - now aged four - through IVF treatment. Mr Mansfield told the court that almost the whole of the
family's wealth at the point of their divorce derived from his damages payout.
At a divorce hearing in May
last year, he heard a judge rule that his compensation should be regarded as an
asset of the marriage and divided accordingly.
He took his case to the
Appeal Court, but Richard Todd QC, for Cathryn
Mansfield, insisted it made no difference that his damages payout pre-dated his
marriage.
'No part of a personal injury award is
sacrosanct. No part of the award is ring fenced, not even that part awarded
under the heads of pain, suffering and loss of amenity,' Mr
Todd said. 'When he took on the responsibility of a wife, and they decided
to have two children, he knew that the capital would have to be used for their
benefit too.
'The court would regard it
as illogical that, whilst earnings should be taken into account and thus be
fully available for the support of the family, a sum paid by way of
compensation should be treated otherwise.
'This is capital which
replaces earnings which would otherwise form part of the marital acquest. The wife has suffered real relationship-generated
disadvantage.'
Turning to Mr Mansfield's request that some of the money should be
returned to him by way of a charging order over his wife's new home, Mr Todd continued, 'The husband talks of a charging order.
Such an order would leave the parties locked together contrary to the spirit of
the clean break and would also make it impossible for the wife to meet her long
term reasonable needs.
'When confronted with
competing needs, the court is required to give first consideration to the needs
of the children. The court carefully weighed the competing needs of the parties.
The need of the husband to be properly housed, fully taking into account his
disabilities, was carefully measured against the wife's need to care for the
children.' he said.
Key
decision: Lord Justice Thorpe said it would be 'unprincipled' for the court to
interfere with the previous ruling
The QC added that the wife
disputed that all the assets of the marriage came from her husband's damages
award, claiming she had contributed £30,000 to buying the former marital home,
plus the 'sweat of her brow' in carrying out a 'great long list' of DIY
improvements to the house.
Mr
Mansfield, representing himself, told the court: 'I love the children, I think
the world of them. I wouldn't be here today if I didn't care. There has been a
lot of effort put into attacking me, but not a lot of due diligence.
'For me this chapter of my
life should be closed. The insurance company did not just pay out the money to
me on a whim.'
Giving the court's
judgment, Lord Justice Thorpe said: 'This appeal raises a single point of
significance - the degree to which a judge in ancillary relief proceedings
should reflect a substantial award for a personal injury claim. The
husband received approximately half a million pounds in his personal injury
claim in 1998 before he ever met the wife.'
He added: 'I have been of a
fluctuating mind during argument, but have come to the conclusion that the
judge went into the conflicting needs of the parties with considerable care and
found that £285,000 was the minimum needed to meet the needs of the wife and
children.'
'£285,000 may be on the
high side and it might be that the wife was fortunate to receive that
quantification, but it would be unprincipled for this court to interfere.'
The judge went on to impose
a £95,000 charging order on Mrs Mansfield's new home,
to be paid back either when the couple's children turn 18, or when they finish
their first degree, or if she remarries a partner who can support her.
In a statement outside
court after the judgment, Mrs Mansfield said that she
had brought the case for the sake of their children.
'From first to last, this
case was all about our wonderful twins and how they would be housed. I am so
very glad that a very wise Court of Appeal has approved the orders made by the
lower courts that I should have £285,000 for housing both them and me,' she
said.
Mr
Todd added: 'The judge achieved what he wanted to achieve which was the
security of the roof over the children's heads during their minority.'
Commenting on the legal
importance of the case, the barrister went on: 'This case is going to be of
huge importance to many other cases in future involving divorce and personal
injury.
'It will now become the
authority for all such future cases and emphasises
that personal injury is significant factor when looking at any damages in a
divorce case.'
Comments 169
Share what you think
View all
The
comments below have been moderated in advance.
This ruling is so so
wrong. I don't expect he will ever get a penny back. Bet the first thing she
does is goes on holiday.
Click to rate
The woman is driven by one thing -
greed, pure greed. She can do what many other divorced mums do - get a job and
go out and work. I also hope Mr Mansfield can appeal
this very bad decision. She knew exactly what she was doing. It's
women like her who give the rest of us a bad name. Shame on
her.
Click to rate
Look, she is a woman so the law bends
over backwards to do everytning for her ( try getting a woman the same sentence as men-never)p He is
a man so in law he doesn't exist, only to pay his money to women. Equality? having a laugh.
Click to rate
And the mother's financial
responsibility is what exactly? The children are 4 years old, there's no reason
why she shouldn't be financially contributing. Women like this make me sick.
Marry a "rich" guy, have a couple of children and fleece him for
life. Disgusting.
Click to rate
What a disgusting state of affairs. The poor bloke. How the hell does she sleep at nite?
Click to rate
How is that decision, fair and just!!
Click to rate
This is crazy! It's gone from one
extreme to the other. Now, if you're a man in the UK, you may as well wave
goodbye to your bank balance, your children and accept that judges back women
if a relationship breaks down, allowing them to take your money and treat you
all as potential perpetrators of domestic violence of paedophilia.
The women are rarely in the wrong. How can this case be fair? It's ridiculous.
Click to rate
Women have been given a licence to leech off men. If I had a son I would advise him
NEVER even to consider getting married. Women always get the children after
divorce and they always get the money. The man loses his children and pays, and
pays and pays. Rob, thats
English law for you. They have you by the short and curlies!
Click to rate
I hope she can sleep at night. What is
wrong with women? Why do they become so damn greedy after divorce? As a woman
myself with a strong 27yr marriage, I could never imagine wanting to be so vengefull against another human being, let alone someone
who you were once 'in love with'.
Click to rate
The only reason why he lost this case
is because he was dumb enough to represent himself. He wouldn't be in the mess
today if he had got himself a QC - just like the wife did.
Rated
View all
The
views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not
necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
We are no longer
accepting comments on this article.