The Young –v– Young case – genuine mental health issue or a tactic to avoid disclosure?
30th September 2009 by: Margaret Kelly and Deborah Jeff
Did a wealthy businessman fake a breakdown to avoid making financial disclosure in his divorce?
This is presently being discussed at the High Court in the financial settlement of a high profile divorce.
Mr Young, a successful businessman, is being ordered to provide evidence to the court to explain the disappearance of his alleged £400 million fortune. Mr and Mrs Young separated in 2006 when Mr Young was a very wealthy businessman. Since then, Mr Young says he has fallen into considerable debt. The rent on Mrs Young’s home in Regents Park and school fees for their two daughters are in arrears.
Through her QC, Mrs Young has rejected her husband’s claim of having suffered a nervous breakdown and has urged the Court to see through this as Mr Young’s way of delaying the proceedings and avoiding making both the Court and Mrs Young aware of his true financial circumstances. “This is a man who has enjoyed a massive fortune and now says it is all gone, but is unable to provide any worthwhile information as to why it has all gone and where it has all gone”
Mr Young’s Counsel told the court that his client was trying to gather his paperwork when he was admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act on 28 August. He says the fact he was admitted to a National Health hospital and not somewhere like The Priory supports the fact that this was a genuine breakdown.
Mrs. Young’s barrister is less believing and has commented that if Mr Young’s symptoms were feigned he would not have been the first person to have adopted this ruse. “The husband ought to hear the clanging of the prison gates. The effect of prison can alter behaviour once it has been sampled”
Mr Young had already been ordered to provide full disclosure of his finances or be sent to prison. That deadline expired on 7 September. After the High Court judge was told that Mr Young recently spent two weeks in hospital she extended the deadline to 13 November.
This case is a reminder of the requirement to make full and frank disclosure of one’s financial position in divorce proceedings. When a spouse does not comply, the Court will employ measures to ensure full disclosure is a made; costs orders can be made against the non disclosing party and ultimately the most powerful sanction is the threat of prison if an order of the court is not complied with. The Court will also make an assumption of Mr Young’s wealth if disclosure isn’t forthcoming, very much in favour of Mrs Young and is likely to make an order that Mr Young’s conduct is taken into account by him having a far smaller financial settlement than he would have achieved if he’d made disclosure when ordered to do so.
It’s not unusual for those going through a divorce to experience physical and mental health problems. Indeed, we often direct clients to health practitioners when the stress of a divorce is impacting on the health of a client. If Mr Young’s mental health issues are genuine, he is getting the help necessary to allow him to cope with the divorce. If it’s not genuine, time is rapidly running out for him to comply with the Court orders.
This is presently being discussed at the High Court in the financial settlement of a high profile divorce.
Mr Young, a successful businessman, is being ordered to provide evidence to the court to explain the disappearance of his alleged £400 million fortune. Mr and Mrs Young separated in 2006 when Mr Young was a very wealthy businessman. Since then, Mr Young says he has fallen into considerable debt. The rent on Mrs Young’s home in Regents Park and school fees for their two daughters are in arrears.
Through her QC, Mrs Young has rejected her husband’s claim of having suffered a nervous breakdown and has urged the Court to see through this as Mr Young’s way of delaying the proceedings and avoiding making both the Court and Mrs Young aware of his true financial circumstances. “This is a man who has enjoyed a massive fortune and now says it is all gone, but is unable to provide any worthwhile information as to why it has all gone and where it has all gone”
Mr Young’s Counsel told the court that his client was trying to gather his paperwork when he was admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act on 28 August. He says the fact he was admitted to a National Health hospital and not somewhere like The Priory supports the fact that this was a genuine breakdown.
Mrs. Young’s barrister is less believing and has commented that if Mr Young’s symptoms were feigned he would not have been the first person to have adopted this ruse. “The husband ought to hear the clanging of the prison gates. The effect of prison can alter behaviour once it has been sampled”
Mr Young had already been ordered to provide full disclosure of his finances or be sent to prison. That deadline expired on 7 September. After the High Court judge was told that Mr Young recently spent two weeks in hospital she extended the deadline to 13 November.
This case is a reminder of the requirement to make full and frank disclosure of one’s financial position in divorce proceedings. When a spouse does not comply, the Court will employ measures to ensure full disclosure is a made; costs orders can be made against the non disclosing party and ultimately the most powerful sanction is the threat of prison if an order of the court is not complied with. The Court will also make an assumption of Mr Young’s wealth if disclosure isn’t forthcoming, very much in favour of Mrs Young and is likely to make an order that Mr Young’s conduct is taken into account by him having a far smaller financial settlement than he would have achieved if he’d made disclosure when ordered to do so.
It’s not unusual for those going through a divorce to experience physical and mental health problems. Indeed, we often direct clients to health practitioners when the stress of a divorce is impacting on the health of a client. If Mr Young’s mental health issues are genuine, he is getting the help necessary to allow him to cope with the divorce. If it’s not genuine, time is rapidly running out for him to comply with the Court orders.
Add new comment