Record divorce £75 million payout to former model wife – high stakes but the same laws apply
On Friday 8 July former Pirelli calendar model, Christina Estrada, was awarded by the High Court £75 million following the divorce from her husband, the billionaire Saudi Businessman Sheikh Walid Juffali. Despite the large amount awarded this is still well below the £238 million Ms. Estrada had initially sought.
It is understood that during evidence Ms. Estrada had confirmed that she required £1 million a year for clothes. Of which this included £40,000 for fur coats, £109,000 for haute couture dresses and £21,000 for shoes.
Following the hearing Ms. Estrada commented stating “I am very grateful for today’s ruling. I have lived in the United Kingdom since 1988 and am thankful for access to the British courts. I never wanted to be here [court]. I always wanted to resolve the matter amicably”
No matter how wealthy the parties of the marriage are the Court’s starting point will always be the income, earning capacity, financial resources and financial needs of the parties in addition to the duration of the marriage. The list is not exhaustive and each case will turn on its own facts.
The Court’s first consideration will always be any children of the family. Proper provision needed to be made to allow for Ms. Estrada to continue to house and look after her daughter. All of the factors of the marriage must be considered in turn but in reality some factors may be given more consideration than others depending on the individual’s particular needs or circumstances.
Despite Ms. Estrada’s high demands there is still an emphasis in ensuring that her reasonable needs (however lavish she alleges they are) can be met. The court will strive to ensure each party achieves financial independence and there is a ‘Clean Break’.
The aim of the Court is to achieve fairness and the Court has a very wide discretion. This can be risky as the law can be vague and therefore open to interpretation. No two cases will be exactly the same given that circumstances vary so significantly from case to case which is why obtaining correct legal advice is essential in order to protect a person’s interests.
Despite the high value of this case the same laws apply. The court had a duty to make sure that Ms. Estrada’s needs are met and that appropriate provision has been made for her and her daughter’s housing needs. The question of what are her ‘reasonable’ needs; however, were of course up for fierce scrutiny when she proposed that she would ‘need’ £40,000 a year to pay for her fur coats. Perhaps this was seen as a stretch too far for the Judge involved.