18/10/2016
The ex-partner of late property developer, Carol Ainscow has won a landmark ruling at the Court of Appeal.
Helen Roocroft, who was in an 18 year relationship with the property tycoon, launched the appeal after discovering that Ms Ainscow may have had hidden assets worth millions, despite claiming she had lost a fortune during the property crash.
Ms Roocroft originally accepted a far lower settlement after the dissolution of their civil partnership in 2009, however, following her death from a brain tumour at the age of 55, it became apparent that Ms Ainscow may have mislead the courts as to the true value of her wealth. As a consequence of the new ruling Ms Roocroft’s legal team is now able to set aside the original “unfair” settlement and negotiate a new agreement.
A pioneer of Manchester’s gay night life scene, Carol Ainscow was the driving force behind legendary bar, Manto and iconic nightclub, Paradise Factory. Always having one eye on the future, she spotted the opportunity in property regeneration and set up Artisan. From its base in Manchester, the company went on to develop regeneration projects in Liverpool, Sheffield and London.
After an unsuccessful attempt to settle via Alternative Dispute Resolution, the case went to the lower family courts and the High Court before being heard at the Court of Appeal in July. All three judges agreed Ms Roocroft’s right to argue for her settlement to be set aside, stating that Ms Roocroft had submitted evidence suggesting that “the deceased’s income at the time of the consent order was three times that which she had stated in her Statement of Information”.
Speaking of the ruling, family law specialist, Rebecca Muirhead of Russell & Russell, said: “This is an interesting case because the law governing the dissolution of a marriage between same sex couples is relatively new and cases like this help to shape our understanding of how the courts will deal with particular issues. In particular, this ruling makes clear that everyone is entitled to honesty and fairness, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.
“The courts take a dim view of anyone undervaluing their wealth in an attempt to reduce a settlement. Anything less than a full disclosure of assets is dealt with strongly and this can amount to a finding of misconduct, the implications of which can lead to financial penalties or an adjustment in the settlement. In this case, it’s the right decision because there can’t be any circumstances where dishonesty is allowed to go unchallenged or the court’s ability to make appropriate decisions be hampered.
“In situations where one or both parties have significant personal wealth, we would always recommend a pre nup. While it’s not very romantic, and no one gets married with a view to getting divorced, but with so many marriages breaking down,it’s always advisable to protect yourself from the outset.”
Please note that this article is meant as general guidance and not intended as legal or professional advice. Updates to the law may have changed since this article was published.