30 June 2016
Consideration of an extreme ‘big money’ application under Part III of the MFPA 1984, with particular focus on the interplay between the marital standard of living and the Applicant’s ‘needs’.
Facts
- H (61) was an incredibly wealthy Saudi national, having amassed a fortune through telecommunications. W (54) was an American-born model who gave up work when the parties married in Dubai in 2001. The parties had one daughter, S (13).
- Amongst myriad properties worldwide, the family’s primary residence was a stately home in Windsor. Throughout the marriage the parties lived a lavish lifestyle.
- In 2013 H entered into a “contract of sale” under which he would transfer assets worth c.£565m to S and his two children from a previous marriage. At the time of the hearing this had not been actioned and H retained the express right to vary the terms of the contract.
- H pronounced talaq in Saudi Arabia in 2014. W pursued her application in England under Part III. H had attempted, unsuccessfully, to claim diplomatic immunity in relation to W’s suit (see Al-Juffali v Estrada & Another [2016] EWCA Civ 176).
- At the time of the hearing H was suffering in the late stages of a terminal illness. W agreed that her claim was limited to her needs and the hearing was expedited.
- W sought global provision of £196.5m. Under H’s proposal W would leave the marriage with c.£37m and the right to live in a London property during S’s minority.
Held
- Roberts J held that it was appropriate to make an award in favour of W (per Section 16 MFPA 1984). H was ordered to pay £53.3m in respect of W’s housing and capitalized income needs, and £1.7m by way of child support.
- For the sake of expediency, the judge undertook a broad-brush assessment of W’s genuine financial needs against the backdrop of the parties’ marital standard of living. Her Ladyship noted that in ordinary cases there was a need to scrutinize the Applicant’s budget thoroughly. Decisions under Part III should be tied to an objective view of the Applicant’s needs in terms of adequate financial provision.
- The considerations flowing from s.16 of the 1984 Act do not constitute any significant brake or restriction on the judge’s assessment of ‘needs’.
- Roberts J concluded that H had the ability to meet the award, regardless of whether this would require H to vary the terms of the 2013 “contract of sale”.
