Disabled crash victim
fights to save his home as ex-wife wins most of his £500,000 damages
·
·
·
·
·
Kevin Mansfield met his
wife ten years after losing his leg in a car crash in 1992
·
They had two children
before end of five-year marriage
·
Judge says she should get
£285,000 of the compensation payout which is his only means of support.
Only
means of support: Kevin Mansfield at court today. He is fighting to protect the
£500,000 compensation payment he lives on.
A man left disabled
after a road crash could be forced to sell his home after a judge ordered him
to hand more than half his compensation payout to his ex-wife.
Kevin Mansfield, 41,
lost a leg and suffered serious spinal injuries when he was hit by a car in
1992.
He received £500,000
compensation in 1998, five years before he met Cathryn,
37. The couple married in 2003 and had two children but split up five years
later.
And in a landmark
ruling, Cathryn was awarded more than half the
damages payment, even though it was intended specifically to make Mr Mansfield’s life easier.
The judge said the
money should be regarded simply as an asset of the marriage, and that £285,000
should go to Mrs Mansfield.
Mr Mansfield has now
been granted permission to have the case heard at the civil division of the
Court of Appeal in
Mr Mansfield was a
student when he was hit by a car while standing in a lay-by on a bypass in
Launceston,
His right leg was
amputated and spinal injuries left his left leg partially paralysed.
He can walk using two sticks but often needs a wheelchair and will have to rely
on it more in future.
He used the
compensation to buy a specially-adapted bungalow and a flat as an investment
property, and went on to meet and marry his wife. The couple had twins, a boy
and a girl now aged four, before separating.
The court heard that
Mrs Mansfield took cash and assets worth £50,000 with
her when she left and had since bought a £226,000 home.
The couple share
custody of the children, with Mr Mansfield having
them for six days every fortnight.
At a divorce hearing
at Chelmsford County Court last May, a judge ruled the compensation should be
‘put in the pot’ of assets to be divided and went on to award just over half to
Mrs Mansfield.
'Point of principle'; Lord Justice Thorpe, left, said Mr Mansfield deserved the right to appeal the award to his
ex-wife Catherine, pictured at the Court of Appeal today, right.
But now Lady Justice
Black has given Mr Mansfield permission to appeal,
saying ‘the only capital arises from the damages awarded and he met the wife in
circumstances of enduring disability’.
She added: ‘The
husband’s disabilities and amputated limb are an important factor in this
case.’
Lord Justice Thorpe,
sitting with her in the Court of Appeal, said the circumstances raised ‘an
important point of principle’, adding: ‘If we say “Go away” today and don’t
grant permission to appeal, we are rubber-stamping an injustice.’
'It could happen to any war vet coming back from
However, the judges
urged the couple, who have already spent around £40,000 each on the dispute, to
try to settle their differences through mediation to avoid the ‘potentially
enormous legal costs’ of a full
Alan Barton, representing
Mr Mansfield at the Court of Appeal last Thursday,
said his client had suffered a ‘manifest injustice’.
He added: ‘Where a
wife marries a husband who is seriously disabled and all the assets come from
his damages, how far do his needs . . . have a priority over the ideal
situation that the wife would like to be in?’
The divorce judge,
he said, had ‘over-prioritised’ the needs of the two
‘normal, healthy children’.
A full hearing will
take place before three judges at a date to be set unless the couple settle
beforehand.
Mr Mansfield said
afterwards: ‘This is such an important case. I want everyone to know the same
could happen to them.
‘Any war veteran
coming back from
Mrs Mansfield could not
be contacted yesterday.
Share
or comment on this article:
Comments 377
The
comments below have been moderated in advance.
We have to stop marriage being hijacked
by those who are determined to undrmine it by making
it a charter for 'legalised' THEFT!
Click to rate
This highlights the problem with
un-married females, they do not stand a chance of fleecing the male of his
compensation or any lottery wins he might have before he dies. Marriage is only
there to ensure the male can be legally forced to maintaian
an idle female and keep her wealth well above his own for the rest of his life
Click to rate
SPEND IT ALL!! Don't let this evil,
vile woman get a PENNY! She knew the situation she was getting into when she
married you. The kids will be just fine... their mother is completely able to
work and can support them as i'm sure she helped
support when you were a unit. Money made prior to the marriage is NOT common
property.
Click to rate
That money is for HIS injuries not
hers...what kind of a woman is she? This is just not right, she looks hard
faced too.
Click to rate
This is right and proper. Why do so
many commenters have a problem with women getting
their fair share from divorce settlements (despite many being women
themselves?) - Richard,
Click to rate
that
500k he got is HIS and HIS only. who does she think
she is and the judge what were they taking when they awarded her his money? if it had been the other way round all the women groups
would of been shouting support.
Click to rate
She must be so proud of herself - and
the judge . When is common sense and decency going to
have a bearing in a case.
Click to rate
She looks a right chav!
Click to rate
Do all judges buy their spectacles from
the same shop?
Click to rate
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.