Issue 3: The mortgage on Meadow Lane (1), Southampton, New York
34.This property was purchased by the husband in his sole name in September 2006 with a mortgage of $8 million. The mortgage now is $13 million. The wife correctly says that the $5m increase in the mortgage debt derives from a re-mortgage in 2016 when the husband raised a lump sum amount to pay off his first wife’s mortgage under a long-standing obligation in a court order. 35.The wife’s position is that she did not agree to the re-mortgage. The husband’s position is that the wife did agree to it; that the debt to his ex-wife was genuine; and that there is no basis for artificially excluding the value of this re-mortgage. Mr Chamberlayne KC submits that this was not ‘wanton expenditure’ within the add-back jurisprudence.36.The original Article 6.6 provided:“
- Approved Judgment
- Mr Justice Mostyn:
- The correct entitlements of the wife under the modified PNA and their value
- The quantum of child support to be awarded to the wife for the benefit of the children, and whether the award should be secured.
- Background
- The PNA
- “EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT FULLY UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT HE OR SHE IS RELINQUISHING VALUABLE PROPERTY RIGHTS BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT.”
- The disputes about the agreement
- Issues 1 & 2: The failure by the husband to set up the Joint Investment Fund
- Issue 3: The mortgage on Meadow Lane (1), Southampton, New York
- Southampton Residence
- Issues 4 & 5: Does the Modification Agreement cover Meadow Lane (2)?
- Future Residences
- Issues 6, 7, 8 & 9: Should the mortgage on the family home be taken at £18m or £16m?
- Issue 10: Is the wife entitled to a credit of half the net sale proceeds of 26 Downing Street?
- Issue 11: Should the wife be entitled to 100% or 50% of Rue Duphot Nos. 2 and 3?
- Paris, France Apartment
- Issue 12: Montfort
- Issue 13: Latent tax
- Issues 14 and 15: Should any of the wife’s legal costs paid by the husband be reimbursed to him?
- Legal Fees and Indemnification in Event of Suit to Enforce
- Issue 16: Disputed artwork
- Artwork
- Issue 17: Compensation for stolen jewellery
- Conclusion on the wife’s entitlements under the modified PNA
- £37,489,392
- £37,489,392
- The wife’s capital needs
- The reasonable annual income to be derived from the wife’s Duxbury fund
- £1,110,316
- The wife’s child maintenance claim
- the child is entitled to be brought up in circumstances which bear some sort of relationship with the father's current resources and the father's present standard of living.
- I accept, in accordance with authority, that the children should be able to have a lifestyle that is not entirely out of kilter with that enjoyed by them in Dubai and that enjoyed by HH and his family
- future
- This case: decision
- Conclusion
- Permission to appeal (“PTA”)
- SCHEDULE 1