It has been nine years since I wrote my original Article following the Court’s decision on a Financial Remedy Application between Dale Vince and his former wife, Kathleen Wyatt, whom he divorced in 1992, but whose Financial Remedy Proceedings were not concluded until 2014, some twenty years after conclusion of the Divorce Proceedings.
Mr Vince has again been back in the High Court, this time in relation to his divorce from his wife Kate Vince.
Mr & Mrs Vince began living together in 1999 / 2000, married on 16th February 2006 and separated in February 2022.
The main issue for determination by the Court was how the Court should deal with significant donations made by Mr Vince’s Company – Ecotricity Group Limited to the Labour Party. Those donations were said to total £12.5m gross.
Mrs Vince applied for an Order to set aside the transactions, which failed on a number of counts. Firstly, because the transaction had been made by a Company and not an individual, and also because the Judge did not feel the transactions needed to be reversed.
Mrs Vince then sought an add-back to the total assets to reflect the sums that had been given away. Add-backs are a difficult Application to run, because the person seeking them needs to show that the spending has been wanton and reckless.
Mrs Vince argued that the donations were reckless as she had not agreed to them, and that previous donations to the Labour Party had never been at that level.
The Court said it was foreseeable for the Company to make donations in the run up to the General Election, and that Mr Vince’s motivation had been political and not related to the Proceedings. In short, he had not made those donations with the primary purpose of depriving Mrs Vince of a share in those funds.
The Court felt it was neither disproportionate nor unreasonable for the donations to be made due to the significant growth in value of the Company in recent years, which both parties would share in.
Mr Vince also sought to exclude the increase in value in the Company from the date of separation to trial, some 34 months later. There had been a significant increase in the value during that time.
Mr Vince had also tried to argue that the Company had a significant value at the start of the relationship, and that should be taken into account. That argument was not successful, because a valuation that had been obtained when he was looking to buy out a business partner had showed a much lower valuation of the Company at £753,000, and in 2000, when the parties were beginning their relationship, there was a further valuation of Mr Vince’s business interests that showed them to be around £1.1m.
The Judge dealt with both of these issues by deciding that he would consider the marital proportion of the business. The business started in 1995, and so had been operating 356 months to the date of Trial. Of those, 264 months were marital, which meant he would look at 74.16% of the Company’s value. He also factored in the costs to the Company and the Husband for extracting the funds to pay to the Wife, and then decided that the Wife should receive 50% of the remaining marital element. He valued that marital element at £83.6m, and accordingly determined that the Wife’s share was £41.81m, which the Husband should pay in three lump sums.
Together with other assets, the Wife received a total of £45.64m.
A separate point arose from these Proceedings. The Wife had tried, in Autumn of 2024, to delay the conclusion of the divorce because she believed the Husband was due to receive a Knighthood in the January Honours List. She did not wish to forego the opportunity to also receive a Title. The Court refused to delay the conclusion of the Divorce Proceedings, and at the time of writing this Article, the Husband has still not received a Knighthood.
Given Mr Vince has now faced two rounds of highly expensive Court Proceedings in respect of the breakdown of two marriages, it is highly likely that if he enters into a future relationship, he will be advised to enter into protective agreements to avoid such a situation from occurring in the future.
In situations of this sort where one party, or both parties have pre-existing wealth, be that inheritance, business assets or other property assets, or savings, they should give serious consideration to entering into Living Together Agreements once they begin cohabiting, and Pre-Nuptial Agreements in advance of any marriage.
The issues put forward by Mr Vince as arguments in relation to the value of the Companies could have been addressed in such an Agreement and provided a roadmap for division of assets in any later divorce, thereby minimising the risk and cost to Mr Vince within those Proceedings.
Find out more about the agreements and how our team can assist you on our website.
Melanie Pilmer is a Partner at Greene & Greene Solicitors based in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk. Consistently ranked as one of the best Family Law teams in East Anglia, our Solicitors have years of experience, yet are personable and approachable.
This is only intended to be a summary and not specific legal advice. If you would like further information please contact a member of our team.
