Riley v Pitman
| Jurisdiction | Bermuda |
| Judgment Date | 10 September 2010 |
| Date | 10 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | Divorce Jurisdiction 2009 No. 84 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bermuda) |
In The Supreme Court of Bermuda
Divorce Jurisdiction 2009 No. 84
Ms R Barritt for the Petitioner
Mr D Cooper for the Respondent
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
CO v CO (ancillary relief: pre-marriage cohabitation) [2004] EWHC 287
S v SBDLR [2010] Bda LR 51
Ancillary relief - Lump sum - Clean break - Pre marital cohabitation of 14 years followed by 10 year marriage, no children - No substantial assets - Inherited property
JUDGMENT of Wade-Miller, J
1. It will be convenient to refer to the parties as "the husband" and "the wife" even though they are no longer married.
2. This is a hearing of the wife's application for a lump sum payment of $350,000 on a clean break basis. The husband and the wife filed affidavits and gave evidence before the court and were cross-examined. I have had the benefit of written and oral submissions from Ms. Rachael Barritt on behalf of the wife and Mr. David Cooper on behalf of the husband.
History
3. On the evidence before the court I am satisfied and find as a fact that the parties lived together akin to man and wife for a period of 14 years - 1985 to 1999 - prior to the marriage.
4. This period of pre marital cohabitation passed seamlessly into their marriage on 16th December, 1999. In the long run, unhappy differences arose and on the 24th July 2009 Decree Nisi was granted. Decree Absolute was pronounced on the 18th September 2009. The marriage therefore lasted 10 years.
5. The Court has been asked to have regard to the 14 year period of cohabitation. In CO v CO (Ancillary Relief: Pre-marriage cohabitation) [2004] EWHC 287 (Fam); [2004] 1 FLR 1095, Family Division, the Court observed that committed, settled relationships which often endure for years in the context of cohabitation outside marriage must be regarded as valid as those where the parties have made the same degree of commitment but recorded it publicly by marriage. Coleridge J said:
"this has nothing to do with morality or religious belief and everything to do with striving to achieve financial fairness as between a couple at a particular stage in society's development. In the end, where such an arrangement has existed (especially where it seamlessly and immediately precedes the marriage) in a given case it seems to me to be capable of being as important a non-financial factor/circumstances under s 25 as any other, akin to the duration of the marriage (subs (d)), or may be a species or part of contribution (subs (f)) or conduct (subs (g)) if it is necessary to find a specific s 25 pigeonhole. Section 25 is concerned with taking into account the reality of a couple's circumstances and situation during the relationship. It is concerned with establishing fact not fiction in all areas including the financial. To ignore
such a factor as cohabitation would lead the court to be considering the case on an untrue basis and almost inevitably lead to unfairness."
6. I accept that the 14 year period of pre-marriage cohabitation is an obvious important circumstance which I ought to take into account, and do so, when considering this case.
7. The wife is a United Kingdom citizen and is now 50 years old. The husband is Bermudian and is 62 years old. There are no children of the family.
8. In January 2009, the wife returned to reside in the United Kingdom. She is living with a partner and they share the household expenses. There is no reliable evidence that she and her partner intend to make this a permanent relationship.
9. The husband and wife first met in 1984 shortly after the wife arrived in Bermuda. They both resided in rented accommodation and in early 1985, approximately 6 months after they met, they commenced living together. They kept totally separate financial accounts throughout pre-cohabitation and during their marriage.
10. Whatever savings the husband accumulated he brought...
To continue reading
Request your trial