A bitter divorcee has demanded a £10 million payout from her ex-husband to meet her ‘reasonable needs’ – which included a £5 million property in London barely 8 years after she received an £8m payout in 2009…In the acrimonious divorce battle played out in the High Court, the judge heard how the couple were married in 1997 and split in 2008, and the wife the following year but surprisingly she now has only £4.685m of that left.
The lady, who cannot currently be named for legal reasons, returned to court to demand more money and a house, telling the judge she could not live outside Kensington because she felt ‘frightened’ of ‘less opulent’ areas and also requested £25,000-a-year for holidays and weekends away and £10,000-a-year for therapy.
However a judge refused her demands, granting her a £2.5 million housing fund and ordered the husband – who is worth £33million – to pay her a further £1.15m.
The woman said:
‘I feel insecure when I venture out of Kensington’.
The High Court heard the woman’s ex-husband is worth £33m, money ‘gifted’ to him by his father.
He was said to have spent large sums ‘to indulge his own interests of motor racing, flying and sailing’, including spending £540,000 on a helicopter. The wife’s spending was said to be ‘modest’ in comparison to his.
Mrs Justice Roberts, setting out the details of the dispute, said;
‘The house (the wife wants) is a five-storey house with potentially five or six bedrooms, five of which have en suite bathrooms.
‘It is situated in prime central Kensington…an exclusive and sought after residential location. The wife said she had felt insecure and frightened when she ventured out of Kensington.
‘The alternative property particulars put forward by the wife range from £4.65m to £5m. All of the properties are in central Kensington or Notting Hill Gate.
‘The particulars relied on by the husband are in Fulham, Shepherds Bush or Battersea.
‘He submits that whilst his sample is – from the wife’s perspective – situated in less opulent areas, all the properties are in respectable and established family residential areas.’
‘Even allowing for the fact that she clearly has an anxious personality, I am not persuaded that any of these areas can be characterized as unsafe or inappropriate areas.
‘I would take a great deal of persuading that the alternative houses were in areas where either the wife or the children would be put at any greater risk in terms of their physical safety and comfort than the properties in Kensington.
‘I am entirely persuaded that a step down in her accommodation needs at that juncture is both necessary and appropriate.
‘I can see no justification for transferring to her a property worth some £4.75m.
‘I hope and expect that she will have embarked upon the house-hunting exercise well in advance of a planned move. She needs time to explore different areas.’
