Christina Estrada, who enjoyed 12 years of marriage and had one child with Dr Walid Juffali, turned down his offer of £37 million, claiming she had income needs of £6.5 million per annum and would require £196 million as a capital sum to fund her lifestyle for the rest of her days.

During the case, Estrada was accused of making “excessive and exaggerated” demands, including a £68 million house in Belgravia, a second home for £4.4 million in Henley-on-Thames, £1 million per annum for clothes and nearly £500,000 to buy five cars. 

Estrada argued that she had become accustomed to this lifestyle during her union with Dr Juffali and the main issue in the case was whether it would be fair for her to be awarded such sum as would enable her to maintain such high expenditure in the future.

Mrs Justice Roberts noted the “magical existence” enjoyed by Estrada and that as there is no statutory definition of “needs”, her discretion could take into account the marital standard of living but balanced against the aim to move her to independent living, after the proceedings.

Mrs Justice Roberts concluded after a careful assessment that Estrada’s “lavish” claims had in fact been pitched at too high a level and that the correct figure for her needs was £2.5 million per annum (capitalised at £44 million). Taking into account the contribution that Ms Estrada should make from her own resources towards her housing needs, the judge arrived at the final award of £53 million.
 

What can we learn from this case?

Firstly, clients must be advised that if their case proceeds to a final hearing, they have to be able to justify each and every item under clinically precise cross examination from the other party’s barrister. In this case, Estrada struggled to convince the court that her claims were rooted in reality rather than pipe dreams and this affected her credibility. To give one example, she had included a claim for opera tickets each year but was unable to name a single production in court.

Secondly, the assistance of accountants can be invaluable. Estrada faced a major problem in that she had very little personal knowledge of what the family’s lifestyle had actually cost during the marriage.

Dr Juffali had ordered his family office to organise all domestic bills and Estrada had the luxury therefore of spending what she wanted, without worry.

Her legal team therefore provided a narrative of how life was lived in the Juffali household to a firm of accountants. At a cost of £50,000, the accountants drew up detailed and lengthy schedules, costing each necessary item individually.  

Thirdly, accurate and honest financial disclosure is vital. Estrada claimed her ex-husband was worth perhaps £8 billion. He claimed the actual figure was far less, but it emerged during the hearing that he had “sold” the bulk of his Saudi assets to his three daughters, leaving him entitled to income rather than capital.  

Full and frank disclosure is advisable in order to avoid delays, increased legal fees and potential penalties from the court. The assistance of an accountant or IFA can again be of great assistance as they can help collate the necessary financial information and documents. They can also identify any potential problems that may arise as to contested valuations and can remind the client to consider any tax implications.   

This is not the largest divorce award in England and Wales - Jamie Cooper-Hohn is thought to have received £330 million in 2014. But to reach this dizzy height, a claimant cannot base their case on needs alone, they will have to invoke the principle of sharing.

Estrada could not do this as Dr Juffali’s wealth had all been acquired before the start of their relationship, but in long marriages, where the money is built up during the relationship, the starting point is that of an equal split.

This is one reason why so many super rich divorces are heard here. London has a reputation as being the divorce capital of the world, partly due to the court’s wide discretion and the lack of a rigid distinction between the typical roles for the male (breadwinner) and female (housewife and carer for the children). Each party’s contribution towards the marriage is valuable and the court will make whatever orders it considers to be fair.

We can conclude that whilst Estrada may have had to accept a reduction in her annual budget of 60 per cent, her award still dwarfs the sum received by most ex-wives and one suspects that the champagne corks are still popping, chez Estrada.