In a recently reported case in the High Court in London, the wife who had formerly been a solicitor, argued that she had sacrificed possible partnership at a large London law firm in order to have children and to be ‘a stay at home mum.’ She successfully argued that she had suffered financially as a result of this ‘relationship generated disadvantage’ and has been awarded an extra £400,000 in the distribution of the parties’ finances in her divorce from her husband, who is an equity partner at the same firm where she had formerly worked.
Making the award, the Judge hearing the case stated he could not be sure
whether the wife would have become a partner at the firm, which she left after
they married, but he was of the view that she had stood a very good chance of
doing so, having considered evidence of her appraisals which had demonstrated an
‘extremely successful career at the firm’.
The husband in the case was a litigation partner with a significant
income. The judge described him as a
“very fine lawyer who has had a stellar career at his firm and deserves
recognition and praise for his achievements”.
The Judge did, however, state that in his evidence to the court, the
husband “was somewhat ungallant as to the wife’s abilities, telling me that he
did not think she was an exceptional candidate despite her two exceptional
grades in her 2006 and 2007 appraisals. He has clearly convinced himself that
her frailties mean she would never have been made a partner at the firm.”
The couple first met in September 1999, and married in 2008 at which
stage the husband had been an equity partner for several years. The wife had been made an associate in the
firm in 2001, was promoted to managing associate in 2006, but she moved to a
bank to work as an in-house lawyer in 2007, the year after the parties
married.
The wife, in her evidence to the court, stated that “compromises had to
be made” when they got married, and that she had agreed to “put her career to
one side for the children”. She was not
afforded the opportunity to return to her role at the bank on a part-time basis
after her first maternity leave and she has not practised since.
The parties separated in 2018. In
the hearing to determine the division of the assets, the wife accepted that the
husband “did not make her give up her career” but the Judge found that the
husband did not want the wife to remain at the same firm once they were married
and she had accepted this position.
The Judge further stated that he was “satisfied that, by the time the
decision was taken to leave, she had formulated her plan which involved both
marriage and, hopefully, children. She viewed herself as the parent who would
take primary responsibility for the children. The husband’s career took
precedence.”
In conclusion, the Judge stated that whilst it is “unusual to find
significant relationship generated disadvantage that may lead to a claim for
compensation”, this was in fact one such case.
Of particular relevance, the husband has another four years until he
completes 20 years service at the firm, after which he will be encouraged to
retire to make way for younger lawyers; if he does so, he will receive a
“substantial lump sum”, but with each year he stays after that, the lump sum
will reduce pro rata.
The judge calculated the compensation for relationship generated disadvantage
on the basis that the husband’s future working life was four years and he
therefore awarded £400,000 on the basis that the wife had earned around
£100,000 a year both at the firm and the bank.
In making the award, the Judge commented that this argument would only
apply in ‘exceptional’ cases. It therefore
remains to be seen if this will become an argument that is advanced more
commonly in Ancillary Relief hearings in cases where ‘relationship generated
disadvantage’ may be argued to be a feature.
If you require
advice or assistance in relation to a family law matter, please do not hesitate
to contact one of our team in confidence on [email protected] or ring our office in Belfast on 028
90434015 or North Down on 028 91811538.
