Hippy millionaire’s ex awarded £300k divorce payout – even though he made his fortune more than a decade after they split
Dale Vince has been ordered to fork out hundreds of thousands for ex Kathleen Wyatt, who he split from 30 years ago
A MUM-OF-FOUR who discovered her ex-husband became a millionaire 13 years after they split was today handed a £300,000 share of his fortune in a High Court settlement - 34 years after they broke up.
Kathleen Wyatt sought a share of ex-husband Dale Vince's fortune three years ago and today succeeded, in what he called a "mad" ruling.
The ex-wife took her claim to the Supreme court after a High Court ruling was overturned by an Appeal Court and her former lover was today ordered to pay £200k legal fees on top of the £300k share.
The 58-year-old met her 56-year-old ex-husband when they were undergraduates and married in December 1981, before splitting in 1985 and divorcing in 1992.
The couple had son Dane, now 35, and Vince took on Wyatt's daughter Emily, now 38, from a previous relationship.
Just four years after marrying and having Dane, the pair split and Wyatt moved to Lowestoft to live off state benefits while Dane moved to Bath, lived in an old ambulance and met new partner Karen Lane.
Neither Wyatt nor Vince had any assets during their time together, but Vince launched a small wind turbine business after making a small generator made from retrieved and recycled materials for his caravan.
The idea grew and he launched company Ecotricity, a hugely successful wind business worth millions.
It is based in Stroud, Gloucestershire , is described as one of the top green energy companies.
Wyatt had meanwhile met new partner Gary Coventry in the Forest of Dean and had two children with him.
In 2012 Wyatt made her first claim for financial compensation, which was upheld by Deputy High Court judge Nicholas Francis, before being overturned by the Appeal Court.
In 2013 the claim was reinstated by the Supreme Court and Vince was ordered to pay out.
Supreme court judge Lord Wilson said Wyatt was entitled to make a claim on her husband's fortune as there are children involved, despite the marriage breaking down so long ago.
It came after an Appeal Court judge ruled the mum's claim "hopeless", saying it was an "abuse" with no real prospect of success.
RELATED STORIES
Overturning the Appeal Court ruling in 2013, Lord Wilson said: "Consistently with the potentially life-long obligations which attend a marriage, there is no time-limit for seeking orders for financial provision or property adjustment for the benefit of a spouse following divorce."
He said the law provided for such orders "on granting a decree of divorce or at any time thereafter", before adding there was a "prominent strain of public policy hostile to forensic delay".
Wyatt claims she is entitled to £1.9m, but Lord Wilson, Lady Hale and Lords Clarke, Hughes and Hodge said such a payout was "out of the question".
They ruled her claim "legally recognisable" and said she could get a "comparatively modest award".
Vince said after the Supreme Court ruling : “ I’m disappointed the Supreme Court has decided not to bring this case to an end now, over 30 years since the relationship ended.
“We both moved on and started families of our own. For my part the passing of time is extremely prejudicial . It’s been so long that there are no records , no court has kept anything, and it’s hard to defend yourself in such circumstances – indeed the delay itself has enabled the claim, because there is no paperwork in existence.
“I feel that we all have a right to move on, and not be looking over our shoulders, This could signal open season for people who had brief relationships a quarter of a century ago – it’s mad in my opinion.”
Family Division judge Mr. Justice Cobb today revealed the couple had reached a settlement with Mr. Vince to pay his wife a £300,000 lump sum.
He said: “The lump sum payment agreed between the parties fairly represents, in my view , a realistic and balanced appraisal of the unusual circumstances of the case.”
He added: “ I appreciate that the husband does not see it this way, having explicitly offered the sum merely to weigh off this litigation at this stage as cost-effectively as he can.”
He described and rejected a bid by Mr. Vince to stop his ex-wife from talking about the case as “hypocritical” as he had chosen to speak frequently and publicly about the case.