This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/7976380.stm
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Tycoon fails in £11m divorce bid | |
| (about 5 hours later) | |
| A City tycoon hit by the recession has failed in court to cut an £11m divorce settlement with his former wife. | |
| Brian Myerson, 50, agreed the deal from £25.8m of assets, including shares in his company, last year. | |
| Mr Myerson told the Court of Appeal the value of the shares had dropped so much that instead of receiving £14.6m, he was half-a-million out of pocket. | |
| But three appeal judges ruled that "natural price fluctuation" did not justify a change in the settlement. | But three appeal judges ruled that "natural price fluctuation" did not justify a change in the settlement. |
| Cash settlement | Cash settlement |
| After the ruling, the tycoon's spokesman said: "Mr Myerson is disappointed that the court failed to recognise that the economic downturn had rendered his divorce settlement unfair. | After the ruling, the tycoon's spokesman said: "Mr Myerson is disappointed that the court failed to recognise that the economic downturn had rendered his divorce settlement unfair. |
| "The aim of Mr Myerson's appeal has always been to ensure that the division of assets with his ex-wife was equitable and he will now take his appeal to the House of Lords. | "The aim of Mr Myerson's appeal has always been to ensure that the division of assets with his ex-wife was equitable and he will now take his appeal to the House of Lords. |
| "A separate consequence of this appeal is that in July the High Court will hear a freestanding application to cancel the further payments that are presently due to his ex-wife under the terms of the existing settlement. That hearing will be in private." | "A separate consequence of this appeal is that in July the High Court will hear a freestanding application to cancel the further payments that are presently due to his ex-wife under the terms of the existing settlement. That hearing will be in private." |
| The couple married in December 1982 and have two sons and a daughter. | The couple married in December 1982 and have two sons and a daughter. |
| Under the divorce settlement reached in Match last year, Mr Myerson's sculptor ex-wife, who lives in Hampstead, north London, will be paid a total of £9.5m over four years. She also received a £1.5m property in South Africa. | |
| 'Unforeseen forces' | 'Unforeseen forces' |
| It was agreed that she should get a cash settlement and he would keep all the shares in his company, Principle Capital Investment Trust, which has offices around the world. | It was agreed that she should get a cash settlement and he would keep all the shares in his company, Principle Capital Investment Trust, which has offices around the world. |
| The court was told the value of each of the shares had fallen from £3 to 27.5 pence since the settlement. | |
| Martin Pointer QC, representing Mr Myerson, told the judges: "The husband's case is that the unforeseeable and unforeseen combination of forces at play within the global economy has undermined the assumptions upon which the order was made." | Martin Pointer QC, representing Mr Myerson, told the judges: "The husband's case is that the unforeseeable and unforeseen combination of forces at play within the global economy has undermined the assumptions upon which the order was made." |
| Mr Pointer said the wife's share of the total assets under the order would be 105% and the husband's would be minus 5%. | Mr Pointer said the wife's share of the total assets under the order would be 105% and the husband's would be minus 5%. |
| "Arguably it could be worse than that," he added. | "Arguably it could be worse than that," he added. |
| Giving the court's ruling, Lord Justice Thorpe said: "When a businessman takes a speculative position in compromising his wife's claims, why should the court subsequently relieve him of the consequences of his speculation by rewriting the bargain at his behest?" | Giving the court's ruling, Lord Justice Thorpe said: "When a businessman takes a speculative position in compromising his wife's claims, why should the court subsequently relieve him of the consequences of his speculation by rewriting the bargain at his behest?" |