A high-profile ruling on divorce payment by the Supreme Court in London carries clear lessons - and parallels - for the legal system in Hong Kong, lawyers argue.

A ruling that enables a divorced wife of over 20 years to seek £2 million ($2.97 million) from an ex-husband made wealthy only after they were long divorced has caused international as well as national shockwaves, lawyers say.

A raft of law firms have said the case of Kathleen Wyatt and her former husband Dale Vince carries serious implications for marital law in England and Wales (Scotland operates under a different system).

In the case of Wyatt v Vince, Dale Vince and Kathleen Wyatt married in December 1981; they split in 1984 and their divorce was not finalised until 1992. Vince is renowned for having become the founder of Ecotricity, a £90 million business that supplies “green energy” from wind turbines – he became wealthy. Wyatt launched legal action against Vince in 2011, asking for a payment and help with funding her legal bills. He attempted to throw out her case but a judge ruled against him in 2012. He appealed that decision and the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. However, in a further twist, the Supreme Court said the woman's case should be heard.

“The news from London yesterday about a divorced wife of over 20 years being entitled to seek £2 million from an ex-husband made wealthy only after they were long divorced has caused the phone to ring in many of the offices of divorce lawyers in Hong Kong today,” Sharon Ser, a family partner at Withers, said.

“In fact as shocking as the news may first seem, the wife in Wyatt v Vince hasn't actually received anything yet. All that has happened is the Supreme Court in London has decided that Ms Wyatt is entitled to be heard on her application. The reason Ms Wyatt managed to succeed thus far is that it would appear her claims for financial provision had not been formally dismissed at the time of her divorce,” she continued.

The “prudent and professional divorce lawyer will always ensure there is the relevant provision in a divorce order whenever possible, although in the case of Ms Wyatt the court file had been mislaid and neither of the parties seem to have kept the final order made at the time of their divorce,” she said.

There are implications from such a situation that courts far afield, such as in Hong Kong, should bear in mind, the lawyer added.

“The law in Hong Kong mirrors that in England in many respects. Applications for financial provision are usually made at the time of the divorce proceedings and capital claims are usually made at that time and there is no provision here for a second bite of the capital cherry. If a `clean break’ financial order is made then neither spouse can apply for further financial provision. If an order for ongoing maintenance is made then such orders can be subject to variation—upwards or downwards—until such time of the recipient’s re-marriage,” Ser said.

Withers family partner, Marcus Dearle, said: “This case is an extremely rare beast. But it is a healthy wake up call. The main lesson to be learned is that detail matters. Get your paperwork in order. Dismiss those financial claims at the time of the divorce. A few thousand HK dollars in legal costs completing that task could save you tens of millions of dollars in the long run. Plan ahead and plan early.”

"Formidable difficulties"

Lois Langton, a partner in the family team at law firm Howard Kennedy and whose clients include sports stars, musicians and actors, said: “The Supreme Court has today acknowledged that Ms Wyatt faces what the court has described as 'formidable difficulties' in seeking to establish that a financial order should be made in her favour. However, the court has stated that the legislation obliges it to determine an application having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Unlike civil cases, the Supreme Court has said that the family procedure rules do not provide power to give summary judgment and to strike out a case on the basis that it has no real prospect of success.

“It is a remarkable decision. Substantial costs will now be incurred in determining Ms Wyatt’s substantive application despite the fact that ultimately there is a strong possibility that no financial award will be made to Ms Wyatt," Langton said.

“Most people would expect to be able to arrange their lives 30 years after separation without fear of litigation rearing its costly head. Allowing the appeal not only runs the risk of opening the proverbial floodgates but the inability of the courts to be able to exercise their discretion to strike out a case that has no real prospect of success also demonstrates the significant shortcomings in the family justice system. Ms Wyatt has won on a technicality which the general public itself would probably consider to be `an abuse of the court’s process' in light of the costs to the public purse of giving a forum to such claims," Langton added.

Josh McEvoy, a solicitor at Mundays law firm, said: “The past has come back to haunt Mr Vince almost two decades on. Despite the lengthy delay in bringing her financial claim, Ms Wyatt has been found to have a 'reasonable prospect of success'. It is a stark reminder that unless financial matters are dealt with at the time of divorce then such claims can remain open long into the future.”

William Healing, a family law partner at Kingsley Napley, said: “This case confirms that there is no time-bar in financial divorce applications. You should tie up loose ends upon separation with a formal court order. Otherwise, as in this case, a spouse like Ms Wyatt who has ongoing childcare responsibilities may come back for a claim many years later. It is the childcare responsibilities she had which have kept her claim alive over two decades. That fact alone gives her a good chance of getting, say, roof over head, from her ex-husband’s millions.”