Gojkovic v Gojkovic
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1990 |
| Year | 1990 |
| Date | 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
WOOLF, RUSSELL AND BUTLER-SLOSS, L JJ
Financial provision – application by wife – husband's resources very large – wife making substantial contribution to wealth of family – amount of financial provision – wife entitled to her share of the family assets – relevance of proposed post-divorce standards of living – whether appropriate to state an income bracket for ex-wives of very wealthy men.
The parties began to cohabit in 1969 and married in 1978. There were no children of the family. The marriage broke down and a decree nisi of divorce was granted in 1987. The wife applied for ancillary relief. It was agreed between the parties that a "clean break" order was appropriate.
From 1969 the parties worked together to build up a successful business comprising hotels and other properties. Other members of the husband's family became involved in the business. The wife ran the hotels whilst the husband and his brothers were involved in property speculation. Both spouses worked very hard and did not have the time or opportunity to enjoy a comfortable standard of living. By the time of the parties' separation in 1986 the assets of the husband and his family were considerable: the husband's share being about £4 million. The wife's legal interest In the family properties was very small. Before the hearing the husband made an open offer. Under this offer, the wife would receive a maisonette worth £295,000 and a lump sum of £532,000. The lump sum was calculated in accordance with the Duxbury principle: see [1989] FCR 569. The wife refused the offer and sought an order for a lump sum payment to enable her to continue her way of life which was the running of a hotel. She required £1.5 million to do this. As she could raise £500,000, she sought an order for a lump sum of £1 million.
The matter came before Ward, J who found that the wife's contribution to the family assets was exceptional and that those assets had been acquired by the joint effort of both parties. The Judge further found that the wife had played a unique role in establishing a supply of custom to the hotel, that her efforts had helped build up and sustain the business, and that the success of the business would not have come without it. As a result, the Judge held that the wife had earned a share of the assets that had been produced and he ordered that, In addition to the transfer of the maisonette, the husband should pay her a lump sum of £1 million
The husband appealed. It was submitted on behalf of the husband (i) that the Judge was
[1990] FCR 119 at 120
wrong in principle to make an order to enable the wife to buy a hotel, and (ii) if not wrong in principle, that the amount of the lump sum was excessive.
Held – dismissing the appeal: (1) It was not appropriate to attempt to lay down an income bracket for the needs of every former wife of a millionaire. Each case must be decided on its own facts and in accordance with the principles set out in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 as amended.
Preston v Preston [1982] Fam 17 and Duxbury v Duxbury [1987 1 FLR 7 considered.
(2) The amended s 25 of the 1973 Act no longer required the court to attempt to place the parties in the financial position they would have been if the marriage had not broken down. However, under the amended section the proposed standards of living of both spouses was a relevant consideration and, where finances permitted, those standards should not be wholly out of proportion to each other. A Duxbury calculation (see [1989] FCR 569) could not by itself provide the answer as to the sum to which the wife was entitled, though it could provide a useful guide. In this case the wife had made an exceptional contribution to the wealth generated during her relationship with and marriage to the husband. It was a contribution greater than that often made by wives after long marriages. Therefore, the wife had earned her share in the family assets. That share was not to be calculated exclusively in relation to her needs. Equally important was the contribution made by the wife to the welfare of the family. The wife was entitled to a recognition of her contribution to the family assets.
(3) In this case the effect of the breakdown of the marriage was to deprive the wife of the running of a hotel, which was her way of life. Weight should be given to this factor. She sought an increased lump sum so that she could continue her way of life. Her proposition was a viable one and there was no issue of principle to prevent the Judge making an order which would enable her to purchase a hotel and continue working.
(4) It could not be said that the Judge's order was so out of proportion as to be plainly wrong. There was no suggestion that the order was impossible for the husband to comply with or that it would cripple his business interests. The order was not excessively generous and could not be said to be outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement which would entitle an appellate court to interfere.
AppealAppeal from Ward, J.
Nicholas Wall, QC and Judith Hughes for the husband. Bruce Blair QC for the wife.
LORD JUSTICE BUTLER-SLOSS.This is an appeal by a husband from the order of Ward, J made on Friday, 17 February 1989. There was an application by the former wife for ancillary relief under ss 23 and 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as amended. This is what has been described as a "big money" case. The assets of the parties amount to approximately £4 million and the effect of the order of the Judge was to provide the former wife with a maisonette worth £295,000 and a lump sum of £1 million. It is a most unusual case and has, in my judgment, features that are exceptional.
The former husband is about 45 years old and the former wife 49 years old. Although they married on 15 November 1978, the Judge found that they met and
[1990] FCR 119 at 121
began to cohabit in 1969. There are no children of the family. The marriage became unhappy; the wife presented a petition for divorce in 1986 and a decree nisi was granted on 12 February 1987.
The Judge described the period of their married life together in these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B v B (Ancillary Relief: Distribution of Assets)
...suddenly became available all over the country many of the rationes decidendi of the past would be quite inappropriate.” 55 In Gojkovic v Gojkovic [1992] Fam. 40 ( Gojkovic), I sought to persuade both Ward J (as he then was) and this court (in my capacity as counsel for the husband in that ......
-
Sutton London Borough Council v Davis (No. 2)
... ... 1319H–1320A ) ... Dictum of Butler-Sloss L.J. in Gojkovic v. Gojkovic [ 1992 ] Fam. 40 , 57, C.A. distinguished ... (2) That, although the justices had had jurisdiction to adjourn the application for ... ...
-
R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
...Proceedings: Costs) [2004] 1 FLR 362 brings together helpfully in one place a number of recent cases on this topic. These include Gojkovic v Gojkovic [1992] Fam 40; Sutton LBC v Davis (No 2) [1994] 1 WLR 1317; Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board [1995] 1 FLR 259; and R v R (Costs: Child ......
-
Re N (A Child) v A and Others
...principle which had previously grown up, where the general practice had been to make no order as to costs in children's cases: see Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2) [1991] 2 FLR 233, London Borough of Sutton v Davis (Costs) (No 2) [1994] 2 FLR 569 and Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board [1995] 1 F......