A WIFE’S “fanciful” claim for £7.5 million from her ex-husband has been dismissed by the Royal Court following a long-running divorce case that exposed the collapse of a Jersey marriage built on inherited wealth.
Family court Judge Samantha McFadzean was asked to resolve the finances of a couple who, she found, had spent decades enjoying the fruits of a family business “without making any contribution to that wealth or any effort to moderate their lifestyle”.
The Royal Court case concerned ancillary relief – how the couple’s assets and income should be divided following the breakdown of the marriage.
The court heard that almost all of the couple’s “lavish life” had been funded by an inherited business empire. The wife described years of high spending and travel, followed by what she said were five years of “living like a peasant” after the separation.
She said that during the marriage she received £3,000 a month from her husband for what she called “lipstick and knicker money”.
The wife told the court the family enjoyed a “party lifestyle”, taking frequent overseas holidays and “never flying further back than in business class”, while freely using business premises to “eat and party”.
At the point of separation, the wife said her husband was drawing more than £45,000 a month from the business despite “never doing any work”, with annual drawings exceeding £600,000 in one year.
The husband accepted that he had effectively retired in his twenties and lived off dividends from his late father’s businesses. He was described by his former wife as “the only man paid to keep out of a business”.
But he told the court he was a “silent partner”, with the day-to-day running of the business carried out by his younger brother – who he said did not share his “allergy to mathematics”.
Following the couple’s separation, the husband initially paid maintenance of about £16,000 a month to his former wife, later reducing this to £10,000 amid her “excessive” spending.
The wife said she had sold jewellery for £8,000 and borrowed around £85,000 from friends to survive during legal proceedings.
She asked the court for a £7.5 million lump sum from her former husband, plus a luxury flat mortgage-free, or maintenance of £18,000 a month until the age of 75.
The husband countered with an offer of £2,000 a month for three years, which the wife rejected – saying she could not accept that “in a million years” as it was less than he “used to pay his prostitute” during their marriage.
The court also heard that the wife had taken a USB stick containing intimate images of her husband from his wash bag.
She accepted that she had threatened to share the material in order to pressure him into settling, though she appeared “unaware of the relevance” of the conduct, telling the court that her husband also retained intimate material of her.
By the final hearing, both parties were unrepresented, prompting the judge to describe the case as “entirely unsuitable” for litigants in person.
Judge McFadzean found that the couple’s “party lifestyle” had provided “little to equip either party with any useful skills”.
While acknowledging the wife was a trained beauty therapist, she said her earning capacity was now “very limited indeed”.
The judge described the husband’s criticism of his former wife’s lack of work as “ironic”, given that he himself had “not worked” during his adult life.
She concluded that the dispute was driven more by attitude than ability, saying it was “more a case of ‘won’t work’, rather than ‘can’t work’”, adding: “The court does not, sadly, possess a magic wand.”
The judge ordered the sale of the family flat, with the proceeds paid to the wife.
She dismissed the wife’s £7.5 million claim as “fanciful” but ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of £850,000 by August 2028, along with maintenance of £2,500 a month until 2035, and £3,000 a month towards rent until the lump sum is paid.
