In the largest contested divorce settlement in English legal history, Beverley Charman, the former wife of insurance millionaire John Charma...

In the largest contested divorce settlement in English legal history, Beverley Charman, the former wife of insurance millionaire John Charman has been awarded £48 million ($90 million) by a High Court judge. This is the first significant case since the UK’s House of Lords restated the core principles underlying divorce settlements in two test cases known as Miller and McFarlane earlier this year which emphasised that the fruits of a marriage should be shared equally unless there was good reason for departing from that yardstick. The judge in the Charman case decided that Mrs Charman should only receive just under 37 per cent of the total assets built up during the 29-year marriage, in which both individuals had started with very little. This reflected the fact that the marriage fell into “that very small category where, wholly exceptionally, the wealth created is of extra-ordinary proportions from extraordinary talent and energy”, according to the judge. The judge also refused to exclude a £68 million Bermuda-based discretionary trust, which Mr Charman was said to have established as a “dynastic trust” for the benefit of future generations of the family, from the pool of assets to be divided. According to legal experts the fact that “exceptional contribution” was still a reason for moving away from an equal asset split in “big money” divorces would be some comfort to high-earning spouses. “This judgment is poor and blatantly discriminatory. The size of the award is grotesque and unfair. By any reasonable standards this is an extraordinary decision. I will appeal this decision. I made a fair and open offer to my wife of £20 million, which would be impossible for any reasonable person to spend in their lifetime,” said John Charman. “The judge has ridden roughshod over a decision, made nearly 20 years ago during the marriage, to place assets in trust for future generations. He has wrongly concluded that I have full access to those assets which does not reflect the reality of the situation. He has taken them fully into account when awarding this unjust settlement,” he said.