The recent case of Wyatt v Vince goes like this: counter cultural gentleman uses festival raver knowledge to crack the bad-ass world of commercial electricity generation.
Makes fortune. Buys shampoo.
However, 30 years before this he gets married (rather squarely) and has kids. The husband and wife separated after about two years.
The ex-wife brought up the children pretty much on her own. She received barely any maintenance from him for the children (he was stony broke through most of their childhood) and indeed, the family were brought up in conditions, at times, of absolute poverty. No hot water. Two bar electric heating and so on.
The Supreme Court have decided that the wife should be able to bring a claim for some money, because she was married to him, albeit it was 30 years ago.
The Court make it clear that just because a claim might be old/dodgy/ difficult to think about does not mean it can be kicked out or forgotten.
They have hinted pretty strongly that her claim is modest. The wife lived with the husband for a very short time, she did not have a hand in making the fortune and it is over 30 years since they were married.
But she will receive a financial leg up because he did not sort it out at the time and because there now is some money to share.
So is there a moral of the story? Well it is until Parliament say otherwise, it is always sort out your financial matters soon after or during the divorce. Do not put your head in the sand as it is always more awkward and expensive to sort out the longer you leave it.
Her case is no more than that, for whatever reason, the heavy burden fell upon her and, in effect, upon her alone.
