Dale Vince — the importance of pre-nuptial agreements to avoid financial disputes during divorce

Green energy entrepreneur Dale Vince OBE recently learned the importance of implementing pre-nuptial agreements (prenups) during his divorce proceedings. Not only could a prenup have potentially reduced the more than £40m payout to his ex-wife ordered by the Court but also saved both parties substantial time, stress and legal costs by providing more clarity over any future financial settlement.

Here, Chris Fairhurst explores Mr Vince’s experience of the financial settlement process and outlines the importance of considering nuptial agreements.

Two high-profile divorces

Dale Vince OBE is a green energy entrepreneur and founder of Ecotricity. He’s known for his ownership of Forest Green Rovers — the world’s first carbon-neutral football club — as well as his donations to the Just Stop Oil organisation and The Labour Party (prior to the last general election).

To family lawyers like myself, Mr Vince is now perhaps even more famous for his matrimonial cases, having been the subject of two high-profile decisions in the Family Court following his divorces. On Friday 17 January, judgment was handed down by High Court Judge Mr Justice Cusworth in the divorce finance case between Mr Vince and his former wife Kate (Dale Andrew Vince v Kate Vince [2024] EWFC 389).

The Judge ordered that he pay her a lump sum of over £40m, which includes interest over three years (starting in April 2025). Mr Vince suggested that this was less than he’d offered on a ‘without prejudice’ basis earlier in the proceedings, meaning that it wasn’t an offer that could be brought to the court’s attention. The result was that both parties continued to incur significant costs in relation to the dispute that was determined at final hearing.

The donations to political parties and other contributions that were made by Mr Vince in the lead up to the court hearing caused significant dispute, as Ms Vince asked for this expenditure to be ‘added back’ into the ‘matrimonial pot’ for division. 

Not his first rodeo —Vince’s first divorce explained

Unfortunately, this case wasn’t Mr Vince’s first experience of a financial dispute. His first case concluded in 2015 (Wyatt (Appellant) v Vince (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 14) against his previous wife on appeal from the Court of Appeal. 

Ms Wyatt and Mr Vince were married in 1981, separated in 1984 and subsequently divorced in 1992. In the eight years that followed their separation, it’s said that Mr Vince led a ‘new age’ lifestyle and was unable to make any financial contribution to the family. However, when they divorced in 1992, Mr Vince established his green energy business, which led to him being the multi-millionaire he is today.

By the time Ms Wyatt had made her application to court, Mr Vince was already well known for his green energy credentials and had been married to his second wife for nearly ten years. This meant that his assets were broadly similar in both cases — although the financial considerations in the divorce of his first wife, Ms Wyatt, centred around the fact that all assets were non-matrimonial and had been acquired post-divorce. It’s possible that Mr Vince was motivated by the ‘principle’ of the issues, rather than settling without the Court’s involvement for a much lower cost.

Since The Supreme Court had confirmed that no time limits are imposed on divorced couples bringing applications for a financial order, this left Mr Vince open to a dispute from Ms Wyatt. This is unlike the limitations to bring claims that usually exist in commercial or other types of civil claims. 

Due to the absence of evidence that there’d been a financial ‘clean break order’ — a court-approved settlement which regulates the future financial claims and ties between a couple following divorce (including property, savings and pension assets, as well as claims for spousal maintenance) — Mr Vince had unknowingly put his future financial position at risk. The Court agreed that there was nothing to prevent Ms Wyatt from pursuing her application for a financial order in the Family Court. Her financial settlement of several hundreds of thousands of pounds likely dwarfed her legal fees.

Fool me once… 

One would expect that after such a dispute, Mr Vince would have been wise to implement a prenup ahead of his second marriage, which took place in 2006. This could have placed limits on the issues that the Court was asked to consider or the value of any financial order that could be made. However, this was before the leading case of Radmacher v Granatino in 2010, where the Supreme Court confirmed that a properly constituted pre-nuptial agreement could limit the extent of later financial claims of spouses following divorce. In that instance, a French wife and German husband had entered into such an agreement three months prior to their marriage in London — something that was widely recognised in their countries but not in the UK prior to their case. The outcome of the Radmacher case has resulted in a much wider use and acceptance of pre-nuptial agreements.

In the absence of an opportunity to enter into a pre-nuptial agreement, Mr Vince was open to more legal troubles in the event of a second relationship breakdown. The Family Court therefore had to determine what the matrimonial assets were from his second marriage (as opposed to his ‘pre-marriage’ assets) and how to divide them fairly between both parties. 

Despite Mr Vince’s experience in the Supreme Court with his first divorce, it appears that he was unafraid to take legal action with his second case to protect his finances. Mr Vince even commented that the settlement was substantially less than what he’d previously offered to his second wife, Ms Vince. However, her lawyers have stated that his ‘open’ offers were much less than the award and unnecessary legal costs had been incurred, including pursuing arguments about an ‘add back’ of his political donations for division.

The Judge’s decision

In this latest dispute, the Court considered factors like the length of relationship — which lasted over 20 years — and the fact that Ms Vince had become a Director in Ecotricity. Mr Justice Cusworth insisted that Ms Vince should receive “50% of the marital element of the value in the businesses, and not less” — recognising her contributions during the relationship while giving credit to Mr Vince’s contributions prior to it. 

Interestingly, Mr Justice Cusworth is said to have determined that Mr Vince’s political donations weren’t motivated by his Family Court proceedings (which Ms Vince had claimed were matrimonial assets, of which she should be entitled to half) — something which Mr Vince said was a “total vindication” of his approach to the proceedings. 

Taking account of all the circumstances of the case, Mr Justice Cusworth concluded that: “Of the totality of the current assets, which I take to be £129.65m, including those outside the business and the excess donation, £9.3m have been deducted as the costs of implementation. Of the balance of £120.2m, £29.15m comprises the non-matrimonial element of the business, leaving £91.2m to be divided. Of this the wife will have a total of £45.64m, or 50.04% of what is matrimonial, including the value of the non-business assets she is retaining. This equates to 37.9% of the total asset base after deducting the implementation costs referred to above.”

Key takeaways

If you’re considering separation and divorce, it’s important to seek specialist family law advice to understand your rights and options. As seen in Mr Vince’s first case, if you attempt a ‘DIY’ divorce and fail to obtain a financial ‘clean break’ order, then there’s nothing stopping your former spouse from seeking financial provision in the future. 

While people enter into marriages with the intention of staying together forever, the reality is that many couples end up separating. Even if pre-marriage assets aren’t particularly high-value, it’s still advisable to consider entering into a pre-nuptial agreement. This can provide for a fair division of assets acquired during a marriage, as well as the provision for any children. An agreement might not be considered a particularly ‘romantic’ gesture, but if you’re getting married or entering a civil partnership, it’s one that might avoid considerable cost and uncertainty in the event of a separation. 

Talk to us 

Our award-winning family law team is here to advise you on your options to ensure that you have the best possible protection in the event of any future relationship breakdown.

Talk to us by giving us a call on 0333 004 4488, sending us an email at hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form below.