The ‘special contribution’ argument has been very prominent recently….
By this we mean that if considerable wealth has been accumulated within the marriage and this was because of one of the parties success in their career, there could be an argument that the other spouse, who has not contributed as much financially, should not be entitled to half of the assets.
However, the case of Work and Gray was recently in the Court of Appeal in which the husband was appealing a financial order which had been made, by stating that because of his financial contribution to the marriage, he should receive a larger share of the matrimonial assets. The Court of Appeal dismissed this and rejected his claim that his “genius outshone her contribution to the marriage”.
This therefore shows a significant lean towards equality in the majority of high net worth cases as there cannot be a price put on the importance of raising a family and providing a home…
We shall see if there are any further cases which accept the special contribution argument- watch this space…
A US banker has been ordered to pay his ex-wife half of the familys £140m fortune, after the court of appeal rejected his claim that his 'genius outshone her contribution to the marriage.
Randy Work, 49, a former executive at Texas-based private equity firm Lone Star, had first claimed that his wife of 20 years, Mandy Gray, was entitled to only £5m because she had 'unfortunately failed to stick to the terms of their prenuptial agreement and had had an affair with the couples personal physiotherapist.
A high court judge rejected Works claim that he made an 'exceptional contribution to the marriage and was therefore entitled to more than a 50-50 split of the couples assets, which include a £30m mansion in Kensington, west London, complete with swimming pool and fitness centre and an £18m ski lodge in Aspen, Colorado.