Landmark Ruling - Husband ordered to share compensation payout

12-Aug-2011 Cathryn Mansfield, wife of amputee Kevin Mansfield, secured over half of her husband’s £500,000 compensation payout in a landmark ruling in the divorce courts. The Appeal Court declared that her needs and those of their children were more important than those of the disabled man.

Lord Justice Thorpe ruled that the money Kevin Mansfield received in 1998 after losing a leg in a road accident - five years before he met his former wife Cathryn - ought to be 'available to all his family' and that the needs of his ex-wife and their four-year-old twins were 'primary' and outweighed his own.

As a result of the ruling, Mr Mansfield, 41, is now faced with having to sell his specially adapted home in Chelmsford, Essex, to meet the court's order that he pay £285,000 to 37-year-old Cathryn, so she can buy a new home for herself and their two children. However, Lord Justice Thorpe also ordered that £95,000 of the money must be paid back to him by his ex-wife if she remarries a partner who can support her, or in 14 years time, once their children have grown up.

Mr Mansfield was a student when he lost a leg and suffered serious spinal injuries when he was hit by a car in 1992. He met his ex-wife Cathryn five years after receiving £500,000 compensation in 1998, however, the couple separated in 2008, soon after having their 4 year old twins.

At a divorce hearing in May 2010 a judge ruled that his compensation should be regarded as an asset of the marriage and divided accordingly. Mr Mansfield took his case to the Appeal Court, but Richard Todd QC, for Cathryn Mansfield, insisted it made no difference that his damages payout pre-dated his marriage. He said 'No part of a personal injury award is sacrosanct. No part of the award is ring fenced, not even that part awarded under the heads of pain, suffering and loss of amenity,' Mr Todd said. 'When he took on the responsibility of a wife, and they decided to have two children, he knew that the capital would have to be used for their benefit too. This is capital which replaces earnings which would otherwise form part of the marital acquest. The wife has suffered real relationship-generated disadvantage.'

Lord Justice Thorpe said it would be 'unprincipled' for the court to interfere with the previous ruling.

Mr Mansfield, representing himself, told the court: 'I love the children, I think the world of them. I wouldn't be here today if I didn't care. There has been a lot of effort put into attacking me, but not a lot of due diligence.

Giving the court's judgment, Lord Justice Thorpe said: 'This appeal raises a single point of significance - the degree to which a judge in ancillary relief proceedings should reflect a substantial award for a personal injury claim. The husband received approximately half a million pounds in his personal injury claim in 1998 before he ever met the wife.'

He added: 'I have been of a fluctuating mind during argument, but have come to the conclusion that the judge went into the conflicting needs of the parties with considerable care and found that £285,000 was the minimum needed to meet the needs of the wife and children.'

This case is going to be of significant importance to many other cases in future involving divorce and personal injury and will undoubtedly become the authority in the divorce courts for all future cases involving personal injury compensation.

For more information Lisa Kemp

---