Divorcee dragged screaming from court after hearing she might lose home to ex-husband 10 years AFTER they split<\/a> <\/p>\nIn September 2013, Mrs Sharp learnt that her husband “had been pursuing a new relationship for some time”, her QC Frank Feehan, explained.<\/p>\n
Their “brief and childless marriage” began to unravel – with Mrs Sharp petitioning for divorce in December 2013.<\/p>\n
Their rows over money were hammered out before High Court judge, Sir Peter Singer, who in November 2015 allocated Mr Sharp \u00a32,737,000 in a “clean break” award.<\/p>\n
The couple’s total assets amounted to around \u00a36.9million – with virtually all the wealth stemming from the wife.<\/p>\n
Mrs Sharp, a mathematics graduate from a “modest financial background” who worked diligently to carve out her high-flying career, is now appealing that ruling.<\/p>\n
Mr Feehan criticised the judge’s approach as “intrinsically unfair” in light of the brevity of the marriage, lack of children, and her massive financial contribution.<\/p>\n
Despite her stellar earnings, the judge approached the case on the basis of a 50\/50 split, although he reduced Mr Sharp’s payout to reflect “unmingled” assets that his wife built up before the marriage.<\/p>\n
“The notion that equal sharing applied in this case made for an unprincipled decision,” Mr Feehan told three Appeal Court judges.<\/p>\n
Mrs Sharp had proposed that her ex should walk away with \u00a31,197,000, which would more than cover his needs, he added.<\/p>\n
Throughout their time together the couple maintained largely separate finances, he added, “earning and spending their own money”.<\/p>\n
They took turns to pick up the bill when dining out and, during the marriage, Mr Sharp himself accepted the “bonuses were not his”.<\/p>\n
He “went out of his way to explain that he did not see her as a sort of cash machine on whose financial resources he would have a call”, said Mr Feehan.<\/p>\n
And although Mrs Sharp had shelled out on “expensive gifts” for her spouse this did not reflect “shared finances”, said the QC.<\/p>\n\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>
Robin Sharp was awarded nearly half of his wife’s fortune<\/span> (Photo: Richard Gittins \/ Champion News)<\/span>One of her gifts was an Aston Martin, but Mr Feehan termed this a “very lavish ‘boy’s toy’ which she was happy to give out of love”.<\/p>\n
It was her wealth which enabled the couple to buy their two luxury homes, the court heard – the first of which was acquired by her before they wed.<\/p>\n
However, Mr Sharp, aged 43, insists he made a major contribution by project managing and carrying out renovation works on their two properties – particularly after he took redundancy in 2012.<\/p>\n
That was after Mrs Sharp bought their second home – in Shurdington, near Cheltenham, a sprawling six-bedroom manor house with two acres attached.<\/p>\n
Mr Sharp’s QC, Jonathan Southgate, said he deserved half of the marital pot and there was ample evidence of the couple’s intentions to pool their resources.<\/p>\n
Even though Mrs Sharp had not paid her bonuses into a joint account this was common in many “traditional” marriages where the breadwinner retains earnings and “pays housekeeping to the other spouse”, he argued.<\/p>\n
Mr Sharp was clear in his evidence that “they agreed he should take redundancy and stay at home – redeveloping their home and supporting their joint life together”.<\/p>\n
The couple originally met while Mrs Sharp was working as a coal industry specialist in Swindon, the Appeal Court heard.<\/p>\n
She was earning \u00a3135,000 yearly, before bonuses, while her spouse, who at one time worked for Cisco, brought in \u00a390,000.<\/p>\n\nRead More<\/h5>\n<\/aside>\n There was no real “intermingling” of their cash during the marriage, claimed Mr Feehan, although Mrs Sharp had paid large cash instalments to her ex during 2013 towards home improvements.<\/p>\n
“The documentary evidence is plain,” argued the QC. “There was never a joint approach to funds in this marriage.<\/p>\n
“The oral evidence is also plain: the husband accepted clearly that such was the way they lived their life together.”<\/p>\n
Mr Southgate, however, backed the High Court judge’s handling of the case.<\/p>\n
“The judge found that the evidence did not support her case that there was a deliberate and agreed intention to maintain separate finances,” he told the court.<\/p>\n
Overall, the judge’s ruling was in line with “the usual sharing approach to divorce”, the QC argued.<\/p>\n
And there were no compelling reasons to “depart from that approach”.<\/p>\n
Lords Justice McFarlane, McCombe and David Richards have now reserved their decision on Mrs Sharp’s appeal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Source link <\/a>
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/i4.mirror.co.uk\/incoming\/article9929232.ece\/ALTERNATES\/s615b\/PAY-PROD-RobinSharp1.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>