[size=14pt]Ex-banker left with £450,000 from £3m in divorce deal wins bigger share of fortune at Appeal Court[/size]

A former banker has been granted an extra £370,000 in his divorce settlement after challenging the initial verdict.

The Court of Appeal said the judge was wrong to include William Murphy’s company deferred compensation fund in its calculations.

The fund, from his former employer Merrill Lynch, was notionally valued at £550,000

The appeal judge also found that Mrs Justice Parker was not justified in ruling that Mr Murphy had wasted £2million of the family assets after separating from his wife, Helene, in 2006.

Lord Justice Thorpe, who headed the panel of three appeal judges, said the accusation was ‘unfair to the husband’.

Mr Murphy, who worked for Salomon Brothers in New York and Merrill Lynch in London, will now get nearly £820,000. His wife’s share was cut from £1.9million to £1.5million.

He can also claim the substantial legal costs of the case.

The assets of the couple, who were married in 1996 and have no children, have been split 65/35 in favour of Mrs Murphy.

Lord Justice Thorpe said this was justified as Mr Murphy had greater future earning potential.

The case came in the week a leading family lawyer called for an end to court rulings which left wives living in comfort on the back of their husbands’ money.

Baroness Deech said handing a husband’s wealth to the wife after a short childless marriage was demeaning to women who were fully capable of finding work.

She said such over-generosity to women had made London the divorce capital of the world.

At the time of Mr Murphy’s settlement, the former banker was earning nothing, his lawyer Martin Pointer QC, had told the court.

But his wife Helene had a handsome income as a director of a London art gallery, he added.

Lord Justice Thorpe, who headed the panel of three appeal judges, said the couple met in New York where they were both working in 1997 and when he was posted to London, she gave up her job to follow him.

They married in Ireland in 1998 and separated in 2006. The couple, both in their early 40s, had no children.

Mr Murphy was a ‘high earner’ in the banking world until 2004 when he was made redundant and has not had a paid job since, said the judge.

The couple had enjoyed a ‘lavish lifestyle’ and lived in a £7 million house in Chelsea.

In the original divorce settlement the High Court judge Mrs Justice Parker gave about £1.88million to Mr Murphy’s wife, two thirds of the couple’s assets, plus her share of the Dublin company.

‘The judge adopted a discriminatory approach to the question of need,’ Mr Pointer had told the court.

Saying the judge had regarded the wife’s needs as pre-eminent, he asked: ‘How could this be so? The parties’ needs called for equivalent consideration and, almost certainly, equal treatment.’

Lord Justice Thorpe said the battle over the assets of the marriage stretched over a period of two years at the end of which Mrs Justice Parker had included the deferred compensation scheme from Merrill Lynch as a liquid asset which was therefore divided between the parties on the 65/35 basis.

Lord Justice Thorpe said it was also pointed out to the judge by the husband’s legal team that she had relied on evidence from the wife’s team that Mr Murphy had wasted £2 million of the family money.

‘The husband’s team asserted the danger of the judge’s reliance on a schedule (of expenditure) which was not agreed and not supported by evidence and which was plainly wrong in some instances.’

But Mrs Justice Parker had rejected both points and had not amended her final judgment, said the appeal judge.

Lord Justice Thorpe said the compensation scheme was not a liquid asset because it involved risk investments with no maturity date and was not available to the husband.

But he said the husband’s claim that his former wife’s share in an Irish company should also be part of the marriage assets failed because any return was likely to be ‘very much in the future’.

The appeal judge said it was ‘obvious’ that the husband’s compensation scheme and wife’s third share in the Irish company should be taken out of the calculations for the settlement.

But Lord Justice Thorpe said the unequal share of the assets could be justified as a price the husband must pay for a clean break and to recognise the disparity in future earning capacity and access to capital.

‘The husband asserted he had no prospects for the future but the judge roundly rejected that.’

He said that although the wife had retrained in the field of the arts, salaries were much lower than in banking.

Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Patten agreed with the ruling.

Lord Justice Thorpe said this was justified as Mr Murphy had greater future earning potential.

Fkforyou:
What happened to pre-nup.?
Anyway sha the guy was screwed badly even if the cause of the divorce was infidelity.

cococandy:
I've a problem with the term 'husband's money'
If they were married it belonged to both of them.

But as is pointed out in the story. The judge was obviously biased towards the woman and against the man.

65-35 ke?

What happened to 50-50?

Is it because he allegedly wasted 2million of the family money before it could be shared?

cococandy:
I've a problem with the term 'husband's money'
If they were married it belonged to both of them.

But as is pointed out in the story. The judge was obviously biased towards the woman and against the man.

65-35 ke?

What happened to 50-50?

Is it because he allegedly wasted 2million of the family money before it could be shared?

cococandy:
I've a problem with the term 'husband's money'
If they were married it belonged to both of them.

But as is pointed out in the story. The judge was obviously biased towards the woman and against the man.

65-35 ke?

What happened to 50-50?

Is it because he allegedly wasted 2million of the family money before it could be shared?

craziebone:
I have always said one thing: the very day women will be made to part with their money in an event of divorce, is the day i will take court marriage seriously.

If Linda Ikeji will have to be the one who would lose out financially in an event of a divorce (if she doesn't have a problem with divorce and sees it as an option), then i would take court wedding seriously.

Adaeze003:
I don't think I believe that "the money belongs to the both of them" crap... in my world, no1 needs to be "settled" in a divorce. Unless the marriage was not mutual or he insisted you should not work.

Maybe there's a good reason that I'm naive about but I'm just imagining myself parting with 50% of my hard earned money... sheesh....

BuddhaPalm:


They even throw it out, at times, in some US states.

Had it been we do this crazy settlement nonsense in these climes, na baby mama straight.

babygirlfl:


Read up about Madonna and Halle Berry and their ex-husband. Also read up about mani money. Yes women are parting with their money.

The richer person in the marriage irrespective of the gender usually parts with their money.

Adaeze003:
I don't think I believe that "the money belongs to the both of them" crap... in my world, no1 needs to be "settled" in a divorce. Unless the marriage was not mutual or he insisted you should not work.

Maybe there's a good reason that I'm naive about but I'm just imagining myself parting with 50% of my hard earned money... sheesh....

FrancisTony:

I can't agree less..

craziebone:
can't you see you guys are begining to shift grounds already as its becoming likely that women will not only begin to pay child support, but also spousal support.

when it was the men paying, you guys would hail it as women's right being protected in court.

cococandy:
I've a problem with the term 'husband's money'
If they were married it belonged to both of them.

But as is pointed out in the story. The judge was obviously biased towards the woman and against the man.

65-35 ke?

What happened to 50-50?

Is it because he allegedly wasted 2million of the family money before it could be shared?

SisterCaro:
You have answered yourself. It would not be 50/50 if he was allowed to just waste $2million and still get 50% of what is left.

babygirlfl:
I think 65/35% was very unfair to the man. I believe the couples assets while married (not before or after) should be shared 50/50 irrespective of gender.

Adaeze003:
I don't think I believe that "the money belongs to the both of them" crap... in my world, no1 needs to be "settled" in a divorce. Unless the marriage was not mutual or he insisted you should not work.

Maybe there's a good reason that I'm naive about but I'm just imagining myself parting with 50% of my hard earned money... sheesh....

craziebone:


at last some women are actually sensible.

Fkforyou:


Abi....Just settle her and keep the baby....C-Ronaldo things.

Adaeze003:
I don't think I believe that "the money belongs to the both of them" crap... in my world, no1 needs to be "settled" in a divorce. Unless the marriage was not mutual or he insisted you should not work.

Maybe there's a good reason that I'm naive about but I'm just imagining myself parting with 50% of my hard earned money... sheesh....

Sagamite:


Why should it be shared 50/50?

babygirlfl:


Marriage is a union of two people and whatever they own while married (not before or after) should belong to both as it is marital property. I think it is only fair that it is divided equally when they separate.

Sagamite:


Why?

What logic did you use to arrive at that "should"?

babygirlfl:


I have explained it. Maybe you should tell me why it should not belong to both.

Sagamite:


Sorry, sweetheart. If your explanation is "marriage is a union", I am afraid that is very lame.

Marriage is a mere announcement, accompanied by a piece of certificate and registration with the local government/authorities, not a right or agreement to someoneelse's money because you call it a "union".

If the 2 people getting married want to agree that it means a right to each other's money, by all means, they should go ahead but that should not be the case by law/force.

What she works for belongs to her, what he works for belongs to him, should be the starting point of the law. If a couple wants that to be different, they can both agree it.