英國天價離婚官司維持“財產平分”判決
The Court of Appeal has rejected claims of “genius” by a former private equity executive, ordering him yesterday to pay his wife ￡72m as it confirmed one of the biggest divorce awards made by the English courts in recent years.
英國上訴法院(Court of Appeal)駁回了一傢俬募基金前高管所謂“天才”的說法，昨日勒令他向妻子支付7200萬英鎊，使該案成爲近年來英格蘭法院作出的數額最高的離婚財產分割判決之一。The three judges upheld a 2015 decision according to which Randy Work, who was the breadwinner in the marriage, should give his estranged wife half his assets because the couple had been equal partners in a relationship of more than 20 years.
上訴法院3名法官維持了2015年的一項判決，即在婚姻存續期間負責賺錢養家的蘭迪?沃克(Randy Work)，應將半數資產給予已分居的妻子，因爲這對夫婦是一段維持超過20年的關係中的平等伴侶。At the Court of Appeal, Mr Work, a former executive at Lone Star, argued he had made an exceptional financial contribution — which the courts have defined as a quality of “genius” — through his wealth-creating skills and that this justified an unequal division of his wealth in the divorce, thus giving him a greater share of the money.
孤星(Lone Star)前高管沃克在上訴法院辯稱，他通過自己創造財富的技能作出了特殊財務貢獻（法院將此界定爲“天才”質素），這足以證明他有理由在這起離婚案中獲得較大份額的財產。
However, Mr Justice Holman, the judge who made the 2015 ruling, found that Mr Work did not make a special financial contribution to the marriage. The judge said the word “genius” was “over-used” and “is properly reserved for Leonardo da Vinci, Mozart, Einstein and others like them.”
然而，2015年對該案作出判決的霍爾曼(Holman)法官認爲，沃克並未對這段婚姻作出特殊財務貢獻。霍爾曼表示，“天才”一詞被“過度使用”，其“只適用於形容萊昂納多?達芬奇(Leonardo da Vinci)、莫扎特(Mozart)、愛因斯坦(Einstein)那類人。”He said Mr Work had to show “exceptional and individual quality which deserves special treatment” in order to prove he had made a special financial contribution but had failed to do so.
霍爾曼說，沃克必須展示“值得獲得特殊對待的卓越的、與衆不同的質素”，才能證明他作出了特殊財務貢獻，但他並未做到。
He concluded the couple’s wealth should be split equally and said this would result in the wife receiving around $112m, or ￡72m. Mr Justice Holman’s ruling was upheld by the three Court of Appeal judges, who said Mr Work had failed to prove his case. Mr Work and Ms Gray began living together in 1992, when they had “good but modest jobs”, and were married in 1995. Their marriage ended in 2013.
霍爾曼的結論是，這對夫婦的財產應該平分，因此，妻子一方應得到1.12億美元（合7200萬英鎊）。霍爾曼法官的判決得到了上訴法院3名法官的支持，他們稱，沃克未能證明自己的主張。1992年，沃克和格雷(Gray)開始同居，那時他們都擁有“不錯但算不上優厚的工作”，並於1995年結婚。他們的婚姻在2013年結束。The Court of Appeal heard that the couple’s wealth was built up over Mr Work’s career with Lone Star in Japan, where his total earnings exceeded $300m, but his wealth was about $225m by the time the court hearings began.
上訴法院瞭解到，這對夫婦的財富積累於沃克在日本爲孤星工作期間，他在日本的總收入超過了3億美元，但到庭審開始時他的財產約爲2.25億美元。Mr Work argued he had applied “groundbreaking methodologies?.?.?.?to the distressed debt sector” in Japan while running the Lone Star office, producing total profits of $7bn.
沃克稱，他在日本期間將“開創性的方法”應用於“不良債務部門”，同時負責孤星日本辦事處的運營，創造了70億美元的總利潤。The case has been watched because it shows how difficult it is for the courts to depart from the legal principle that wealth should be equally shared upon divorce even when it has been largely built up by the breadwinner.
這起案件受到關注，因爲它顯示了要讓法院背離法律原則——離婚時夫妻財產應平分，即使這些財產大部分是由賺錢養家的一方積累起來的——是多麼困難。
