Case No. RS20D03594

87.I now turn to the most important issue in the case, namely the question of non-matrimonial property. There is absolutely no doubt that a significant source of the resources in this case emanated from the endeavours of JR. ABC Inc had been established in the 1950s. It had been going for more than thirty years before the Husband even joined the business. Moreover, when he did so in 1987, I am satisfied that he initially played a relatively minor role. Nevertheless, this all changed in 1993 when he became Chief Executive Officer. At that point, JR was in his mid 60s. During the Husband’s tenure as CEO and then Chairman, the business changed out of all recognition from a relatively small regional chain of stores to one of the largest chains in Country X, with the highest sales of any company in its field. At marriage, there were less than 20 stores. On sale, there were more than 100. Whilst I accept that the JVP model was conceived by JR, it was clearly not easy to implement. You only have to look at the relatively modest progress between the 1950s and 1997, as against the enormous growth thereafter. It was necessary to find the right person to be the JVP and the right place for the store. The huge growth was achieved under the Husband’s stewardship. The fact he may have found some excellent lieutenants is merely part of the skill base of all senior executives. Nobody can do everything themselves. It may be that JR tried to do so in a way that held him back, but that would be speculation. I am, however, absolutely clear that the Husband did not. Under his leadership, the business was transformed from a small regional chain to a national powerhouse that could be sold, including the business premises, for over $1 billion. This all occurred during the marriage. It leads inexorably to a finding of fact that the huge increase in value created matrimonial property, notwithstanding the origin of the business. The Wife is entitled to share in that matrimonial property. The fact that assets were put into a trust named “IR & OR Trust”, after the parties, is irrelevant to this finding. I have not come to my conclusion on the basis of mingling of assets. I have done so on the basis of the Husband’s matrimonial contributions. 88.Equally, however, I have no doubt that I must make allowance for the significant non-matrimonial element. After all, the Husband would not have been able to achieve what he achieved if JR had not started the business in the 1950s and, in effect, handed it over to the Husband in 1993. There are two different ways in which I can calculate the non-matrimonial property in this case. The first is to decide on a figure for the non-matrimonial element, deduct that from the assets of £184 million and award the Wife one-half of the resulting figure. Miss Stone cautions me in relation to this approach by reminding me that such a “top-slicing” of non-matrimonial assets can lead to a large departure from equality (see