Case No. BV20D11362

67.I propose to deal first with the question of special contribution. I have formed the very clear view that it is not a reason for departure from equality in this case. I will consider this in the light of the tests approved by the Court of Appeal in Work v Gray. I am clear that none of the three tests is satisfied. In relation to the first test, I do not find the work of the Husband in this case to be of such a “wholly exceptional nature such that it would be obviously inconsistent with the objective of achieving fairness for (his work) to be ignored”. The Husband is undoubtedly a very good businessman. Following the MBO, he was shrewd enough to see that the research and development side of the business needed to be closed, but I would have thought any accountant would have been able to tell him that it was loss making and holding the company back. Indeed, this had been raised by X Co. He did very well indeed to renegotiate the Q Co contracts twice but the first was during the marriage. He is entitled to credit for the second, but I do not see how it takes this case into the realms of special contribution. Equally, it was obvious that the plant and machinery had to be replaced with modern equipment. It may be that he was helped significantly by a slice of good fortune in being able to obtain the alternative product from overseas at a bargain price, but good fortune does not equate to special contribution.68.Finally, of course, there is the issue of the move into specialised therapy. I have to say that I would have thought that the question of whether the product could assist with such therapies would have been a pretty obvious question to ask, given the huge benefit of the product with traditional medicines. Moreover, the evidence was that there were some enquiries about this even in 2018, with free samples being delivered to those asking. In this regard, I cannot ignore the fact that, as late as early 2021, Mr Taylor was not even told about this development. Either it was unimportant or there was a failure to give full and frank disclosure, whilst trying to get the Wife to settle for £20 million. The Husband simply cannot have it both ways. Moreover, the Husband had a strong team alongside him. His name does not appear on the January 2020 document, which was clearly the work of others. I remind myself that, throughout this period, he was only working three days per week and, shortly thereafter, gave up the post of CEO and was only working one day per week. Whilst I accept Mr Marks’ point that we have no corroboration for his contention, basically raised for the very first time in January 2023, that this was his baby, I am prepared to accept that it was his idea to investigate the potential. It is, however, obvious that it was others that actually did the work. I am also minded to take the view that the firm was in the right place at the right time. The purchaser needed a product producer. They may have paid over the odds to acquire one, but it will be the purchaser who will develop these specialised technologies, with or without the use of the product. It will not have been the Husband who will have developed them. I can see nothing sufficiently exceptional to justify this as a special contribution. 69.The second test is that there needs to have been such a disparity in the respective contributions of the parties to the welfare of the family that it would be inequitable to disregard it. Again, I cannot see how the Husband can get within this test. In terms of work alone, the slightly odd aspect is that, from 2019 onwards, he was only working three days per week and, from July 2020, he was working one day per week. Throughout much of this period, he was weighed down by this litigation and his ill health. The Wife was, throughout, looking after the three children. I also remind myself that, during the marriage, she had additional responsibilities for them, with the Husband away from home for around 100 days per annum. I do not doubt that he worked very hard whilst employed by X Co. In the early years of the buy-out, I am sure he worked equally hard and there was the added worry that the business might fail, but the Wife shared that worry. When the purchaser bought the company, they retained Mr S and Mr M. They did not retain or, so far as I am aware, even seek to retain, the Husband. Unlike some cases, they clearly did not view his future involvement as crucial to the continued prosperity of the business. It follows that, for all these reasons, I cannot see anything close to the required disparity in contributions. 70.The third test is that the amount of the wealth alone may be so extraordinary as to make it easy for the party who generated it to claim an exceptional and individual quality which deserves special treatment. Often, however, he or she will need independently to establish such a quality, whether by genius in business or some other field. A windfall is not enough. I recognise that turning £310,000 into over £250 million was an enormous achievement, but it did not involve making billions of pounds. Moreover, I do consider that there was an element of windfall in achieving such a high price so quickly compared to the valuations of Mr Taylor, M Fund and the Mr T/Mr S transaction. I find there to have been at least an element of being in the right place at the right time when the purchaser and others decided how valuable it was to acquire a producer of the product. I make one final point. The business nearly failed in early 2022. If it had done so, there would have been nothing to share, let alone sufficient for a special contribution. It was the external consultants who spotted the problems and rectified them, not the Husband. Whilst he may have requested their involvement, I find it impossible to believe that someone else would not have eventually done so, if batch failures had continued. It follows that special contribution is not made out. .