Husband Given Go-Ahead to Fight for Bigger Divorce Settlement

[Brent]

Husband Given Go-Ahead to Fight for Bigger Divorce Settlement

By Stephen Howard, PA News


The former husband of a wealthy heiress has been given the go-ahead to fight for a bigger share of the couple's assets.

Boatbuilder Charles Currey was ordered out of the £1.2 million home in the idyllic waterside village of Bosham, West Sussex, as part of the divorce settlement with his former wife, Henrietta.

High Court judge Mr Justice Charles awarded Mr Currey £640,000 to buy himself a new home and relocate his business plus £48,000 a year periodical payments from his former wife.

They had agreed to share the custody of their five children.

But Mr Currey argued that he should be the one who kept Watersmeet in Chichester Harbour or be awarded more than £1 million to buy another waterside property in the same area so he could continue running his business from home.

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Evans-Lombe gave him permission to launch a challenge at the Court of Appeal but warned the father of the legal costs he faced if he failed.

Nicholas Francis, representing Mr Currey, told the judges that this was a long-running marriage where no distinction could be drawn between the respective partners' contributions.

But he said the High Court judge had excluded from his calculations the 64,000 shares in property group Howard De Walden estates which Mrs Currey had inherited from her family.

This was the Currey family's main asset and income throughout their marriage, he said.

The judge had also ignored the fact that the former wife's wealth would increase during her lifetime owing to the "exceptional wealth" of her family, whereas Mr Currey was "extremely unlikely" to acquire more capital.

Mr Francis said that because the couple would be sharing custody of the children, they were entitled to similar accommodation.

He said their home in Bosham had been chosen because of Mr Currey's family's association with the area and his love of sailing and "all things nautical".

"This was a love not shared by the petitioner (the wife)," said Mr Francis.

He added: "Any proper analysis of the evidence pointed to the need for the respondent (the husband) to remain at that property and for the petitioner to purchase attractive accommodation elsewhere."

Lord Justice Thorpe, giving permission to appeal, said Mr Currey had argued that the High Court judge was wrong to say that the wife and children should have the matrimonial home rather than the husband and children.

He said it had been argued that the wife was getting twice that of the husband and this would never have happened if it was a female rather than a male seeking a settlement.  

http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2276628