By Bimpe Fatogun
A divorce court has forced a businessman to split almost half of a £1.6 million fortune with his former wife.
The man, who has not been named, had applied for the settlement given to his wife to be reduced because they had separated in December 1996.
Master Charles Redpath ruled that the businessman's wife, to whom the man was married for more than 20 years, was entitled to a more substantial part of his wealth.
The businessman has been ordered to pay her a lump sum of £713,000 and £2,500 a month until he retires.
His wife makes £953 a month but had received maintenance of £1,835 a month from her estranged husband.
She had accrued £13,573 in bank accounts and shares.
The husband makes "in the region of £180,000 a year".
The couple's total assets total just over £1.6 million, not counting the £175,276 in pensions held by the husband.
"This marriage must be regarded a a lengthy marriage and accordingly the starting point in most such cases should be 50-50," Master Redpath said.
He said despite the husband's argument that his wife's share should be reduced "due to the length of the separation and the fact that a number of the assets had accrued post-separation",either party could have petitioned for a divorce in 2001 on the basis of a five-year separation.
The delay meant the decree nisi was not issued in the case until December 21 2005.
Master Redpath said the husband's business had significantly increased in value after the separation but it had been bought in 1991 when the pair were still together.
"Some of that increase is likely to be in the nature of an inflationary increase but some of it must also be attributed to the husband's continuing work in the business," he said.
The wife was awarded 50 percent of the £600,000 matrimonial home and 40 per cent of the husband's interest in the business. calculated at £301,750, and a third of the rest of her husband's assets, including his half-share of a flat in Spain valued at £66,500.
"The wife should receive assets totalling £700,000 from the jointly owned or solely owned assets of the husband and should retain her own assets including her car and 85 per cent of any potential inheritance from her father," Master Redpath said.
[Surely, surely this is not the same Charles Redpath who was involved in the official fraudulent theft of my intellectually-handicapped brother Freddie's estate! I mean C W G REDPATH as he signed himself as the former Official Solicitor. Mr. Redpath, who has a long list of very serious questions to answer regarding the fraudulent and criminal theft of my brother's large and extremely valuable estate, not only seems to have escaped legal accountability for his part in this massive and sick fraud and even escaped the need for having to answer that list of serious questions, but he has even been promoted to Master - or junior judge - with the power to share the assets of a divorced couple. Well I suppose it could be said that he has a penchant for sharing out other peoples' assets. His problem seems to be that where the assets of a vulnerable and mentally handicapped patient is concerned he simply treats them as if they don't exist and the patient is fair game for lots to be cast on their goods.]