There’s no time limit for bringing a financial remedy claim following divorce. That’s the principle, and the widely reported case of Vince v Wyatt backs it up. There the wife succeeded in a financial claim 19 years after the divorce. (Post-divorce, her ex-husband had become a multi-millionaire). Her financial award was possible largely because the couple never obtained a binding financial order from the court.
At the time of their divorce there were very few marital assets to divide. Getting a financial order was simply not a priority. As the husband’s finances improved greatly, it was worth the wife’s effort to bring a claim despite the huge delay.
However, in Vince the courts did make clear that an award after a lengthy delay was by no means guaranteed. In the case of Lin v Par (2025) the courts faced a similar situation – but the wife’s financial application failed. We discuss the case and its implications below.
Lin v Par – The Background
Although divorced back in 2002, it was not until 2023 that the wife brought a financial claim. During the marriage the husband had built up a successful IT business that at one time had been worth almost £10 million. Before they divorced however, the dotcom bubble burst and the value of the business plummeted so it was worth just over £100,000 when the couple agreed the terms of a consent order.
Following the divorce the husband rebuilt his business so that not long after it he was worth over £100 million. A few years after the divorce – 2005 – the couple were still in touch, and the husband was in a position to gift his wife almost £200,000. By the time the wife reignited her financial claim in 2023 however, the couple had not been in contact for over a decade.
Why Bring A Claim After So Long?
Why, after seemingly accepting the financial settlement and leading a completely independent life for more than 20 years did the wife suddenly decide to reopen her claim? In what was undoubtedly an unusual set of facts it transpired that the wife had been encouraged to do so by a Mr TP, a business rival of her ex-husband. Mr TP, it appeared, was intent on damaging the ex-husband commercially and saw a way to do so through the financial remedy disclosure process.
He successfully manipulated the wife into instructing solicitors and proceeding with the claim. When she issued her claim and inspected the original court file, it turned out that inexplicably the original order had never been properly sealed by the court. This error seemed to strengthen her case and appears to have encouraged her to pursue it vigorously. Remember, without a final order or consent order formally approved by a judge, financial claims in theory remains alive.
Her claim was for £5million for her future financial needs. She argued that
- At the time of the original agreement in 2002 the husband had not been honest about his finances
- She was put under undue pressure to sign the agreement
- The agreement was never sealed by the court and never implemented
- The s25 factors if applied to the case mean the court should look at the fairness overall of the situation. The award sought, to provide the wife with financial resources and housing, amounted to only a fraction of the husband’s wealth
Not surprisingly the wife’s claim came as a bolt from the blue for the husband. (He told the court that he was ‘reeling from shock’ when he heard about it.) In response he highlighted the fact that he and his ex-wife had led separate lives for more than two decades and it would be simply unjust to ask him to pay her any money after so much time had elapsed.
The Decision: Fairness Is Key
The wife’s lack of a coherent explanation for her 20 year delay meant that her case was probably fatally flawed from the start. Indeed, early in the judgment the judge, Peel J made clear that
“at the risk of stating the obvious, a delay of over 20 years is a highly relevant factor within the analysis of fairness”
In a lengthy judgment he then went on to explain precisely why the wife’s case had limited merit. He found that:
- The original agreement was freely entered into. There was no duress or non-disclosure by the husband
- The 20 year delay was critical. The fact that the original order had never been properly sealed was ‘of limited relevance’ because both parties thought it had been and they each assumed the divorce and financial remedy matters had been fully and formally finalised
- Previous cases show that a lengthy delay can reduce or even eliminate any potential award
- All the husband’s wealth had been created after the couple had separated
- The wife had an annual earning capacity of £100,000 – this was sufficient to meet her future financial needs
Ordering an immediate clean break, Peel J. completely dismissed the wife’s claim.
Comment
The Lin v Par judgment shows that, even though there is no strict time limit for bringing financial claims (where no final order was made at the time of divorce), delay in making a claim can effectively destroy any case you may have had.
The case differs from Vince v Wyatt where a claim was allowed after a lengthy delay. There the wife could at least argue that her care of the couple’s children post-divorce should be reflected in a fresh award. In Lin v Par the wife could not show she had made any post-separation financial contributions. As Peel J said, the husband could not be treated as ‘the insurer of last resort’ for the wife.
Finally it’s worth noting that the wife’s claim cost the husband more than £1million in legal fees. From a practical point of view he decided there was no point in pursuing his ex for costs because he knew she did not have the means to pay. A lesson, if needed, of the absolute necessity of finalising financial matters following divorce – and closing the door firmly on any future claims.