History > 2006 > UK > High Court (II)

Biggest divorce settlement

in British legal history

as wife gets £48m

Friday August 4, 2006
Guardian
Jack Shenker

An insurance magnate has been ordered to pay his former wife £48m in what is believed to be the biggest divorce award in British legal history.
John Charman, 53, was told that his argument that he should keep most of the couple's money because he had earned it was old-fashioned and anachronistic. But the owner of Axis, a global insurance company based in Bermuda, denounced the ruling as unfair and vowed to appeal.

The ruling, which will reduce Mr Charman's wealth to around £87m, is likely to have ramifications for future divorce cases involving wealthy couples, such as the forthcoming case between Heather Mills and Sir Paul McCartney.

Mr Charman met his wife, Beverley, at school. During their 29 years of marriage he built up assets of more than £130m in the insurance market and became the eighth richest businessman in the City of London. During that time Mrs Charman, also 53, gave up her job to raise their two children, who have now left home. The couple separated in 2003 and Mr Charman went to live in Bermuda.

When Mrs Charman filed for divorce the following year, Mr Charman proposed giving her the family home in Sevenoaks, Kent, and £6m, an offer he later increased. "I made a fair and reasonable offer to my wife of £20m, which would be impossible for any reasonable person to spend in their lifetime," he said.

But Mrs Charman refused to accept the settlement and last week at the high court in London, Mr Justice Coleridge ruled that she was entitled to receive a £40m lump sum from her husband and retain £8m of assets already held in her name.

The decision is the latest in a series of divorce rulings granting large payouts to the estranged spouses of rich businessmen. Earlier this year, the law lords ruled that divorce payouts for "stay-at-home" mothers should take into account a wife's contribution to a marriage rather than solely being based on living expenses.

In a judgment made public yesterday, Mr Justice Coleridge said of the Charman case: "The wife's case is the now familiar one. This was a long marriage during which all the wealth ... was generated from scratch. She played her full part as wife and mother of two now adult sons."

Mr Charman had argued that his wife should receive a substantially less than equal share of the fortune because of the "exceptional" contribution he had made in creating the wealth.

"In the narrow, old-fashioned sense, that perspective is understandable, if somewhat anachronistic," the judge concluded. "Nowadays, it must attract little sympathy."

The judge acknowledged that "the wealth created is of extraordinary proportions from extraordinary talent and energy". He decided on an award amounting to 37% of Mr Charman's total assets. The businessman contends that almost £70m of those assets should not have been taken into account because they are being held in a trust fund for future family members.

The judge added: "Common to both of them was an immense feeling of hurt and pain surrounding the marriage breakdown which, I detected, still lingers. As a result, extraneous issues/evidence found their way into the application which have caused added bitterness."

Mr Charman said:"The judge has ridden roughshod over a decision, made nearly 20 years ago, to place assets in trust for future generations. This judgment is poor and blatantly discriminatory."

However, he will be taking a risk if he presses ahead with an appeal. In law, assets should be split equally between the two partners unless other factors need to be taken into account, but Mr Justice Coleridge has allowed Mr Charman to hold on to 63% of his fortune.

"There is no guarantee that an appeal could go in his favour," said Lucie Tyrer a family lawyer with ASB Law. "Indeed, it could go against him. The next judge could demand a 50-50 split of the assets, so any appeal is a gamble."

Mr Charman became a prominent figure in the insurance market when he offered 24-hour war risk insurance during the 1991 Gulf conflict. His profits ballooned again 10 years later when he offered insurance cover for acts of terrorism following the September 11 attacks.

Mrs Charman declined to comment.

Biggest divorce settlement in British legal history as wife gets £48m, G, 4.8.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,1836998,00.html

11.45am

Lesbian couple denied

UK recognition of marriage

Monday July 31, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A lesbian couple lawfully married abroad failed today in a high court bid to have their union recognised under UK law.

The president of the high court family division, Sir Mark Potter, refused to declare the Canadian marriage of Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson valid in Britain.

He said the couple faced "an insurmountable hurdle" in trying to have a same-sex marriage recognised in UK law.

The couple were married in Canada, where same-sex marriages are legal, in 2003 but found their status downgraded to that of a civil partnership when the relevant act came into force in the UK last December. The relationship would have been recognised if they were a heterosexual couple but is not regarded as such because of the UK's Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

In his ruling, the judge said: "It is apparent that the majority of people, or at least of governments, not only in England but Europe-wide, regard marriage as an age-old institution, valued and valuable, respectable and respected, as a means not only of encouraging monogamy but also the procreation of children and their development and nurture in a family unit in which both maternal and paternal influences are available in respect of their nurture and upbringing.

"The belief that this form of relationship is the one which best encourages stability in a well-regulated society is not a disreputable or outmoded notion based upon ideas of exclusivity, marginalisation, disapproval or discrimination against homosexuals or any other persons who by reason of their sexual orientation or for other reasons prefer to form a same-sex union."

He added that marriage was, by "longstanding definition and acceptance", a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children.

If that institution was protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, "then to accord a same-sex relationship the title and status of marriage would be to fly in the face of the convention as well as to fail to recognise physical reality."

He said lasting single-sex relationships were "in no way inferior" and English law does not suggest they are, recognising them under the name of civil partnership.

"Parliament has not called partnerships between persons of the same-sex marriage, not because they are considered inferior to the institution of marriage, but because, as a matter of objective fact and common understanding, as well as under the present definition of marriage in English law ... they are indeed different."

The couple had asked the high court to recognise their marriage under section 55 of the Family Law Act 1986. For an overseas marriage to be recognised in the UK it must be shown that the marriage was legal, recognised in the country in which it was executed, and that nothing in the country's law restricted their freedom to marry.

But in his ruling, Sir Mark said the common law definition of marriage under English law was: "The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."

Their marriage was automatically deemed in the UK to be a civil partnership under The Civil Partnership Act, which allows same-sex couples new rights as "civil partners".

Ms Kitzinger is a sociology professor at the University of York and Ms Wilkinson is professor of feminist and health studies and director of the social psychology degree programme at Loughborough University in Leicestershire.

The couple brought the test case with the support of the human rights watchdog Liberty and OutRage!, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights group.

    Lesbian couple denied UK recognition of marriage, G, 31.7.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1834153,00.html

12.15pm

Murderer Stone loses medical report case

Wednesday July 12, 2006
Press Association
Guardian Unlimited

Michael Stone, serving life for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell, today failed in a high court attempt to bar the press and public from seeing a full report on his care and treatment.

A judge heard Stone was particularly concerned about the report falling into the hands of newspapers, "not least because of the treatment it will receive by the tabloid press".

However, Mr Justice Davis, sitting in London, said his claim had failed. "I refuse to grant Mr Stone any of the relief that he seeks," he added. "The public interest requires publication of the report in full."

The judge said the decision to publish "was justified and proportionate, and does not constitute unwarranted interference with article eight - the right to respect for private life - of the European convention on human rights". He added that no breach of the 1998 Data Protection Act was involved.

In 2001, Stone was given three life sentences for killing 45-year-old Dr Russell and Megan, and the attempted murder of Megan's sister Josie, in Chillenden, Kent, in 1996.

An independent inquiry report into Stone's treatment by mental health, probation and social workers before the attack was due to be published last year, but was put on hold pending the legal challenge.

Richard Clayton QC, appearing for Stone, who is now 45, said he had co-operated fully with the inquiry and had disclosed private details about his care and treatment to it.

He had always been content for "lessons to be learnt" from it by health professionals and all relevant regulatory bodies.

Stone was also content for a second report, setting out the conclusions of the inquiry, to be published for public consumption, but not for intimate medical information about him to be disclosed.

At the hearing which led to today's ruling, Mr Clayton told the court: "It is common ground that the crimes perpetrated on the Russell family created instant and justifiable national horror.

"There are valuable lessons to be learnt from considering the treatment and care of the claimant.

"However, the claimant objects to disclosure of highly personal medical information by publication to the world at large, not least because of the treatment it will receive by the tabloid press."

Kent & Medway Strategic Health Authority, Kent County council and Kent probation board all defended the decision to publish the full report.

Josie Russell, listed as an "interested party" in today's case, and her father, Shaun, are pressing for the report to be published because they hope it will help to prevent similar attacks in the future.

The judge refused Stone leave to appeal, but "with some reluctance" agreed to extend the order preventing the report from being published until July 26 in order to give him time to ask the appeal court to hear his case directly.

Shaun Russell was in court for today's ruling, and telephoned Josie to tell her the result. "I was a little bit worried what the outcome would be, and I think there are still grounds for worry," he said after the hearing.

"What was nice to hear was that the judge made the judgment in favour of full disclosure, and that is what we have been pushing for. It has been six years since the report was finished, and 10 years since the murders, so we have been pushing for this for a long, long time.

"My daughter Josie is in full agreement - we believe it is in the public interest that lessons need to be learned, because what we have read in the report has been fairly horrifying about failures in the system in looking after Michael Stone up to the time of the murders."

Mr Russell said Josie "was pleased to hear that the judge had found fully in our favour", adding that he hoped they would not have to wait much longer to see the report published.

    Murderer Stone loses medical report case, G, 12.7.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1818690,00.html

12.45pm

Government contests control order ruling

Monday July 3, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
David Fickling

The government is today appealing against the overturning of a control order against a Manchester man after the decision left terror laws "in tatters".

The appeal comes less than a week after a further court ruling struck out control orders on six other terror suspects, and follows grim assessments by two parliamentary committees of the anti-terror situation in the UK and worldwide.

The court ruling was imposed last September to stop a student, named in court documents as MB, from travelling to Iraq to fight US-led forces.

MB denies he had any such plans, saying he was going on holiday to Syria when he was stopped by counter-terrorism officers at Manchester and Heathrow airports last March.

The high court struck down the order in April, when Mr Justice Jeremy Sullivan said the control order system was "conspicuously unfair" and provided only a "thin veneer of legality" to cover the detention of suspects.

MB's solicitor, Muddassar Arani, said that he was "being treated as a second-class citizen". "It is clear the home secretary is acting as the judge, jury and prosecutor," she said.

His passport was taken from him, and he was forbidden from owning travel tickets or entering airports, railway stations or ports.

He also had to stay at a designated address, report to a police station at the same time each day, and allow police to search his address at any time.

Control orders - one of the most controversial parts of the government's anti-terror legislation - were imposed after courts forced the closure of the "Belmarsh system", which allowed foreign terror suspects to be held in Belmarsh prison indefinitely.

The orders allow the home secretary to impose restrictions including house arrest, stringent rules on contact with outsiders and reporting to police, without having to prove allegations against terror suspects in court.

They were originally targeted only at foreign suspects but, since the July 7 London bombings, five have been imposed against British citizens. There are currently 14 orders in force against people in the UK.

The seven orders rejected by the courts remain in force until the appeal process is exhausted.

Joanna Sawyer, a lawyer for human rights group Liberty, said the appeal court would hopefully uphold the previous high court ruling.

"Control orders substitute long-term punishment based on secret intelligence for charges, evidence and proof," she said. "This kind of injustice is completely counterproductive in fighting terrorism."

Eric Metcalfe, the human rights director of the legal group Justice, said the imposition of control orders on the basis of secret evidence went against basic legal rights.

"It seems to us unthinkable that you can have limits placed upon your liberty but not have any opportunity with which to challenge it," he said.

"Merely because a government suspects someone, it doesn't mean they are a terrorist. The idea that the minute someone becomes a suspect they lose rights to due process and liberty is absolutely astonishing."

The government has expressed growing discontent with the Human Rights Act - legislation it passed in 1998 - which has repeatedly come into conflict with its policies on terrorism and immigration.

Tony Blair wrote to the home secretary, John Reid, within a week of him taking up his post in May, recommending revisions to the Act, and the Conservative leader, David Cameron, last weekend suggested scrapping the legislation.

A report on anti-terror laws by the Commons home affairs committee today attacked the government for not giving sufficient consideration to lengthening the amount of time terror suspects could be held without charge.

Police had pressed for a 90-day deadline, but a 28-day compromise was agreed after the government suffered its first Commons defeat on the issue.

The committee said there was still a case for a longer deadline where "compelling" evidence was presented, although it warned that there would need to be tight scrutiny of the system.

The foreign affairs committee yesterday warned that al-Qaida continued to pose an "extremely serious and brutal threat" to the UK, and that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were proving a propaganda coup to militant Islamists.

The appeal court hearing is set to last three days, and is likely to be appealed to the Lords following a verdict.

A final Lords verdict would be expected at around this time next year.

    Government contests control order ruling, G, 3.7.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1811700,00.html

New blow for Home Office as judge quashes six terror orders

· Angry Reid to appeal against high court ruling
· System 'incompatible with human rights'

Thursday June 29, 2006
Guardian
Alan Travis and Audrey Gillan

A high court judge last night demolished a central plank of the government's anti-terror policy when he quashed "control orders" on six suspected terrorists, saying the home secretary "had no power to make them under human rights law".

John Reid launched a furious counter-attack last night, saying he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling by Mr Justice Sullivan, which overturns nearly half the 14 control orders currently in force. He will try to overturn it in the court of appeal next month. Mr Reid said the control order system was needed to deal with international terror suspects who could not be deported on human rights grounds to countries where there was risk of torture.

"The obligations contained in control orders are necessary to protect the public and proportionate to the threat that these individuals pose," he insisted.

But Mr Justice Sullivan had declared that the system of control orders, which places the terror suspects under "draconian" restrictions just short of house arrest for up to 12 months, was incompatible with the European human rights convention. The decision, if upheld by the appeal court, will leave a big hole in the government's anti-terror policy as ministers will be left with no powers to detain terror suspects whom they are not able to prosecute in an open criminal court.

Lord Carlile, the government's terror law watchdog, revealed last night that the Home Office is already working behind the scenes on a lighter-touch version of control orders, with shorter curfews and less restrictive rules on visitors that they hope will not fall foul of the courts.

But this latest clash over human rights between the government and the senior judiciary is a sharp illustration that the crisis facing the Home Office is not over yet. Tony Blair warned the judges again yesterday that he is prepared to legislate to overturn their rulings if necessary.

Mr Justice Sullivan said the home secretary had acted illegally when he used control orders to lock up six Middle Eastern men for 18 hours a day in one-bedroom flats across the country after failing to bring charges under the Terrorism Act.

He told the government it had no power to make the orders. Each of the orders was a legal "nullity".

The men had been deprived of their liberty and freedom in contravention of article 5 of the European convention on human rights.

Mr Justice Sullivan severely criticised the home secretary for first claiming to international human rights monitors that the courts could quash control orders, but then a year later telling the courts that it would be "inappropriate" to quash them.

This change in position was "more than unfortunate" and had "the potential to undermine the government, to undermine confidence in public administration and its integrity". It is the second time in three months that Mr Justice Sullivan has criticised the orders. In April he overturned a seventh control order on a British terror suspect known only as "S", calling it an "affront to justice".

Six men, five of them Iraqi, and one of either Iraqi or Iranian origin, were arrested under anti-terrorism legislation in October last year and released without charge. The six were then held under immigration laws before being placed under control orders.

Their lives were "for all intents and purposes under the control of the Home Office" and they were not able to "lead a normal life". The men were under curfew for 18 hours a day enforced by an electronic tag and were not allowed to attend any public meetings. The home secretary decided which mosque they could attend.

Mr Justice Sullivan said: "The freedom to meet any person of one's choice by prior arrangement is significant. As is the freedom to attend any temple, mosque, church as whatever you choose." He went on: "I am left in no doubt whatsoever that the cumulative effect of the order has been to deprive to respondents of their liberty, in breach of article 5. I do not consider that this is a borderline case." The judge said he had taken into account the importance of the needs of protecting the public from acts of terrorism, but "human rights or international law must not be infringed or compromised".

Control orders were introduced in February last year after the judges declared the Belmarsh regime of indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects to be discriminatory and incompatible with human rights law.

Human rights groups welcomed the judge's ruling. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty said control orders were a "substitute long-term punishment based on secret intelligence for charges, evidence and proof. This kind of injustice is counter-productive in fighting terrorism".

Amnesty International said the judgment showed Mr Reid could not deprive people of their liberty without charge or trial: "If people are suspected of having committed a crime, they should be charged and put on trial - not arbitrarily detained."

    New blow for Home Office as judge quashes six terror orders, G, 29.6.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1808325,00.html

High court overturns unlawful killing verdict on school trip death

Tuesday June 20, 2006
Press Association
Guardian Unlimited

An inquest jury's verdict that a 16-year-old non-swimmer who drowned during an outdoor activity trip was unlawfully killed was overturned today by the high court. A judge substituted a verdict of accidental death.

Herve Bola, from Woodford Green, Essex, died at the Sgwd y Gwladys Falls in Neath Valley, south Wales - known locally as Lady Falls - in July 2002.

Other teenagers on the trip claimed that a part-time youth worker with Redbridge council, Daniel Brown, then aged 21, had called to Herve to jump into a natural pool at the falls - a claim Mr Brown denied.

Today, Mr Justice Bennett, sitting at the high court in London, ruled that Neath and Port Talbot coroner David Osborne had made a mistake in law.

The judge said: "I have found that in this case this diligent and conscientious coroner has fallen into error and should not have left the unlawful killing verdict to the jury.

"Shortly and simply, the facts - taken at their highest - came nowhere near founding such a verdict."

Herve lived with his grandmother, Francoise Bola, 61, who attended court with his mother, Muzinga Bokwa, to oppose Mr Brown's application. Mrs Bola left in tears after the judge's ruling.

The group had been on an outward bound course at Glasbury House outdoor education centre in Hereford, which was operated by the London borough of Redbridge. The day they visited the Lady Falls, the group was hot and sweaty after taking part in abseiling and a zipwire activity and wanted to cool off.

Herve panicked and drowned within moments of leaping into the cold water. Efforts to rescue him were unsuccessful.

Other teenagers in the group said Mr Brown, who had been helping to supervise their activities and was in the water, had called out to the non-swimmer: "Jump in - I will catch you."

Staff members in the party all testified they had never heard Mr Brown call to Herve and said he had done everything possible to save him.

An instructor, Ian McLeod, also told the jury that Herve told him that day he was going to jump in the water, and had been warned not to.

But the inquest jury of nine, sitting at Neath county court, took three hours to reach their 7-2 majority verdict of unlawful killing after hearing almost seven days of evidence in April last year. They also visited the scene.

Quashing the unlawful killing verdict, the judge said it could only be seen by Herve's family, the media and public "as a verdict that Daniel Brown unlawfully killed Herve Bola".

The jury, therefore, had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that Daniel had called to the non-swimmer: "Jump in - I will catch you", or words to that effect.

It also had to be "foreseeable" that the words would have led to the death, and Mr Brown's conduct was so bad that it amounted to gross negligence manslaughter.

He said Herve, who was about 1.8 metres (6ft) tall, had panicked and thrashed about when he hit the water, making it impossible for Mr Brown and others supervising the party of teenagers to save him.

The judge said: "The facts as found by the jury are wholly consistent with a verdict of accidental death."

After hearing that Herve's grieving family did not want a fresh inquest, he formally announced a narrative verdict of accidental death, saying: "Herve Bola, who could not swim, jumped into the natural pool in his response to encouragement from Daniel Brown who was expecting to catch him.

"Herve panicked on entering the water, and Mr Brown and other supervisors "were unable to maintain their hold on him. As a result, he drowned".

The judge expressed his deepest sympathy to Herve's family.

The judge found the coroner had been right to refuse to allow teenage witnesses to Herve's death to be cross-examined in the course of the inquest after they became abusive and aggressive to Mr Brown and other Redbridge council staff members.

Louise Christian, of solicitors firm Christian Khan, which represented Herve's family, said later: "Herve's mother and grandmother are extremely distressed that a high court judge has substituted a verdict of accidental death for the verdict of unlawful killing, which was delivered by a jury of ordinary people at the inquest. They continue to believe that Herve's death was due to an unlawful lack of care."

    High court overturns unlawful killing verdict on school trip death, G, 20.6.2006, http://education.guardian.co.uk/schooltrips/story/0,,1802040,00.html