Barrister’s ex-wife ‘living on benefits’ loses fight for bigger divorce payout

Barrister Jason Galbraith-Marten QC pays £9,000 a year to his ex-wife to support their daughter
Champion News

The ex-wife of a leading barrister who claimed she was pressured into an “unfair” divorce settlement has failed in her bid for more money.

Catherine De Renee, 38, was granted £72,500 of shared assets after she split from millionaire barrister Jason Galbraith-Marten QC in 2009.

The lawyer, 49, paid his ex-wife about £45,000 in maintenance until 2012. He now pays her £9,000 a year to support their daughter, eight.

Ms De Renee, an artist, told the Court of Appeal she is “in a predicament of real need” with £50,000 in debts, and has been relying on state benefits.

Her barrister argued Mr Galbraith-Marten, a specialist in equality law, enjoys a life of luxury in the £1.6 million Fulham home they once shared.

He has remarried, the court heard, but was asked to pay out more for the divorce settlement, which Ms De Renee, an Australian, said she signed “under very great pressure”.

However, Lady Justice Black threw out the claim, backing Mr Galbraith-Marten’s argument that he had honoured the settlement — which was agreed in Australia — in full.

“This court is not here to provide a top-up for every foreign divorce,” she said. “There was nothing to show that the settlement was unfair.”

Ms De Renee battled through the Australian and British courts to try to reopen the settlement and was in court on Friday. Mr Galbraith-Marten also attended as an observer but did not comment after the decision.

Putting the case for reassessing the settlement, Ms De Renee’s barrister Nicholas Yates said his client is in a “precarious” financial position and has been forced to take her daughter out of her fee-paying school.

“She resides in rented accommodation and derives her income from two sources, namely state benefits and child support. She also has debts of over £50,000,” he said.

“The husband is a barrister, specialising in employment law in chambers in London. He resides in the former matrimonial home in Fulham. The wife believes this property to be worth in the region of £1.6 million. There was in this case no independent assessment of whether the settlement was fair.”

However, Lady Justice Black said: “The wife was legally advised when she reached the Australian agreements. She could have sought help there if she thought they were not fair and did not provide for her needs.

When she subsequently realised how dissatisfied she was, she was able to air her views before the Australian court and they were examined and not established.

Even in the English courts, considerable weight would have been given to the agreements reached.

“The fact that the wife has more need now would, even in this country, not be reason to reopen an agreement reached by consent.”

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in