25/06/2009 | Financial arrangements

A case recently heard in the Court of Appeal could affect the financial arrangements of many divorced couples.

It involves investor Brian Myerson, who divorced his wife in 2008 at the peak of the recent boom. The settlement reached with his ex-wife involved giving her a lump sum of £9.5 million and a property in South Africa worth £1.5 million. Although he has mortgages and other liabilities of £2.5 million, this still left Mr Myerson with a considerable fortune, his investment company being then valued at more than £15 million. At the time, the settlement left Mr Myerson with 57 per cent of the couple’s total assets.

Then came the credit crunch. Mr Myerson’s shareholding in his company is now valued at less than £2 million, meaning he has a negative net worth in the region of £500,000. £2.5 million of the original sum due to Mrs Myerson is still unpaid.

Mr Myerson went to the Court of Appeal in a bid to have the 2008 settlement overturned, and lost. The Court was sympathetic regarding his financial predicament, but considered that he had made the settlement with his eyes open and with the benefit of advice. The settlement would not be amended.

The Court of Appeal has issued a ruling relating to residence orders that will have implications for a number of divorced couples.

The case dealt with a child whose divorced parents had a shared residence order over her.

The girl’s mother wished to move from London to Chew Magna, near Bristol, where she had been offered a job. The girl’s father, a Serb, claimed the move would seriously interfere with his role in her upbringing and that it was part of a plan by the mother to disrupt his relationship with his daughter.

Hearing an appeal against the original decision, Lord Justice Wall said, “In each case what the court has to do is to examine the underlying factual matrix, and to decide in all the circumstances of the case whether or not it is in the child’s interest to relocate with the parent who wishes to move.”

In the view of the Court, the father had played a substantial role in his daughter’s life and the move was not in the girl’s best interests. The fact that the residence order was a shared one as opposed to a sole residence order did not alter the way the Court had to consider the issues.