WHAT PRICE A TITLE?: DIVORCE AND LOST OPPORTUNITIES 

Published on 07 October, 2024 | Izzy Walsh

Divorce can be a very emotional and intensely personal experience.

However, no matter the individuals circumstances of a couple’s relationship, the process by which they end their marriage is common to all.

When it comes to the financial terms of their separation, there is an emphasis on arriving at a settlement which is fair to both parties.

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 sets out a number of matters which the family court takes into account to ensure that is the case, including things such as respective financial needs, income and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/18/section/25).

Whilst those factors are relatively routine, another provision listed by the legislation is rather more rarely used.

It requires the court to consider “the value…of any benefit which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring”.

Generally, such lost opportunities encompass assets to which financial value can be attributed and redress then achieved, such as pensions, interests in business ventures, future bonuses or unvested share options.

A case involving the businessman Dale Vince has given the provision another noble dimension.

Various media have reported that his wife, Kate, is arguing that Mr Vince is trying to speed up their divorce because he believes that he may be given a peerage as a result of his support for the Labour Party and wants to deny her the chance of becoming a Lady (https://www.thetimes.com/article/5598955e-79a5-44c7-a56e-3a5ef72f8af6?shareToken=23a31aa21669bbe8f1e0cbe7dc8681a3).

Earlier this year, Mr Vince was apparently ordered by the High Court to disclose any intended political donations while their divorce was ongoing (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13247913/Labour-megadonor-Dale-Vince-tell-wife-plans-make-donations-High-Court-orders-eco-tycoon-accused-keeping-dark-plans-fund-Keir-Starmers-party.html).

His barrister has described the latest claim as the “purest of speculation”.

Nevertheless, it highlights how the assets under consideration in a divorce settlement are not just those which form part of the joint marital ‘pot’ but can include a “benefit” – in this case, a title – which may not yet have been delivered and which has a value that is both unascertainable and subjective.

Income in the form of performance-related or the proceeds of a sale of shares in a business often require certain criteria to be met in order for them to happen.

The closer in time to the point at which spouses split up that such an eventuality arises, the stronger the argument can be that such resources are referable to a marriage and can be shared.

If Mrs Vince’s argument is considered valid, it prompts two questions. Firstly, should the court delay her divorce? Secondly, if it does not and she loses out on a title, what value can be put on that?

This is not the first time that Dale Vince has been involved in a headline-making divorce.

In 2016, his first wife, Kathleen Wyatt, was awarded £300,000 nearly 20 years after their marriage ended, in a matter which one Supreme Court judge described as “highly unusual” (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0186-judgment.pdf).

Although the current case and the claims which it has featured are somewhat exceptional, they underline the importance of individuals thinking broadly about their current and prospective assets when it comes to divorce.

Few of us might stand a realistic chance of ennoblement, high office or fabulous wealth but it is always worth taking specialist advice to avoid nasty surprises or lost opportunities.