Zimina v Zimin
October 5, 2017
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE PATTEN
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
- LADY JUSTICE KING
Areas of Law
- Family Law
October 5, 2017
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Try asking the following...
Judgment
Lady Justice King:
This is an appeal against an order made by Mrs Justice Roberts on 13 July 2016. The respondent (wife’s) application had been made pursuant to the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 Part III: Financial Relief in England and Wales after Overseas Divorce etc. (MFPA 1984 or Part III). By her order the judge ordered the appellant (husband) to pay to the wife a lump sum of £1,148,480 (£1.14m) together with provision for the children of the marriage.
The issue before the court relates not to the quantum of the lump sum in itself, but as to whether it was appropriate in all the circumstances of the case for the judge to have made a lump sum order at all.
The case turns on the proper application of sections 16 – 18 MFPA 1984 against the backdrop of the decision of the Supreme Court in Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] 1 AC 628 (Agbaje). This case specifically relates to a situation where, following foreign divorce proceedings, a foreign consent order was made with a number of ancillary agreements, in circumstances where both parties had legal representation. The terms of the order having been implemented, five years later (there having been no change in her circumstances) the wife made an application under Part III seeking substantial additional provision for herself.
It is accepted by both the appellant and respondent that it is unusual for an order to be made under Part III where a foreign order is in place. The question for the judge, and now for this court, is whether this is one such case.
Background
The husband and wife are Russian nationals who married in Moscow in 1997. There are three children of the marriage, now aged 20, 19 and 17 years old. In August 2004 the family moved to London where they lived in rented accommodation until August 2007 when a substantial property in Kensington (the Kensington house) was bought for the family as a home. By the time the property was ready for occupation the marriage had failed and the wife and children moved in without the husband.
The wife continues to live in the Kensington house with the two younger children of the family. The husband has remarried and has two young children, each of whom suffers from serious health problems. The husband now divides his time between homes in Cyprus and Bulgaria.
It is common ground that all the wealth in this case was created by the husband’s father, Dr Z. Dr Z’s personal wealth was said to be in the region of $182m. Dr Z is a highly respected R
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal (Lady Justice King, with Lord Justice Floyd and Lord Justice Patten concurring) allowed the husband’s appeal from Mrs Justice Roberts’ order awarding the wife £1,148,480 under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. The parties, Russian nationals, had divorced in Russia in 2009 under a consent order and ancillary agreements, with both represented, which gave the wife about $10m (approximately £5.1m), rent-free occupation of the Kensington house during the children’s minority, agreed child payments and school fees, and a contingent annuity via the BMT Trust. Five years later, without any change in her circumstances, the wife issued Part III proceedings seeking transfer of the Kensington house and a large lump sum. Applying ss.16–18 MFPA 1984 and Agbaje, and giving weight to the fairness of the agreement (Radmacher/Edgar), the Court held that the original provision was adequate and fair; that “financial benefit” includes the total package; that delay and the absence of any change militate against relief; and that the judge’s lump sum award—largely offsetting litigation-created shortfall—was inappropriate. The appeal was allowed and the lump sum set aside.