High-flying city trader Julie Arnold, who divorced her cheating husband, says her ex ‘won the lottery’ by having an affair after he was handed a whopping £2million settlement
A high-flying City trader who divorced her cheating husband says her ex ‘won the lottery’ by having an affair, after he was handed a whopping £2million settlement.
Julie Arnold is at the centre of a landmark divorce case by challenging ‘out of date’ legislation that saw her adulterous husband handed half of their £5.45million fortune, despite being married to him for less than four years.
Ms Arnold, formerly Sharp, has called for divorce laws to be modernised to fit changing relationship trends with couples marrying later, having shorter marriages and having had no children.
Although she successfully challenged a High Court ruling that awarded her husband half of their wealth, divorced Robin Sharp was still left with their lavish £1.1 million house and a £900,000 lump sum.
The wealthy trader, who earned an eye-watering £10.5million in bonuses during their marriage, said the principle that assets should be shared equally in these circumstances was unjust.
‘Matrimonial law relies on a 1973 act and distributes wealth based on case law involving a couple who married in 1961 and stayed together for 30 years,’ she told the Telegraph.
‘Our life is different now and there will be more and more couples who divorce after shorter marriages before they have children.’
Although she successfully challenged a High Court ruling that awarded her husband half of their wealth, divorced Robin Sharp was still left with their lavish £1.1 million house (pictured) and a £900,000 lump sum
‘It was still a lottery win, just for being with someone,’ Ms Arnold said. ‘If we’d stayed married, we would still have kept our finances separate and he would not have had his £2million.
The ex-couple, both in their 40s, wed in June 2009 and were married for just four years, said Lord Justice McFarlane during the High Court ruling in June 2017.
‘By at least February 2013, the husband had started a clandestine affair,’ he added.
And, despite his wife’s ‘growing suspicions’, he denied being unfaithful right up until 2015 when he was questioned in court during the divorce case.
When they met, both were already earning around £100,000 – with Mr Sharp working as an IT consultant and Mrs Sharp a successful energy trader.
But her career took off and she raked in huge earnings due to the ‘soaring’ energy market, amassing bonuses totalling £10.5million in five years.
They enjoyed two plush country homes in Gloucestershire – the second with a £2million price tag which cost £500,000 to refurbish.
Mrs Sharp, 44, rained expensive gifts on her husband – including a top-of-the-range Aston Martin, described as ‘a very lavish boy’s toy’.
But despite her sudden wealth she was adamant that her husband ‘didn’t see her as a sort of cash machine’.
She found out about the affair in September 2013 and the marriage unravelled, with Mrs Sharp petitioning for divorce in December that year.
In November 2015, divorce judge, Sir Peter Singer, awarded Mr Sharp capital of £2,725,000, exactly half of the £5.45 million matrimonial assets that were up for grabs
In November 2015, divorce judge, Sir Peter Singer, awarded Mr Sharp capital of £2,725,000, exactly half of the £5.45 million matrimonial assets that were up for grabs.
But his ex-wife took her case to the Appeal Court, insisting his payout was ‘intrinsically unfair’ in light of her overwhelming contribution to the family fortune.
Agreeing with her today, Lord Justice McFarlane ruled that Mr Sharp was entitled to no more than £2million, made up of a £1.1m house and a £900,000 lump sum.
The childless couple had kept their finances largely separate during their brief marriage and a ‘departure from the equal sharing principle’ was justified, he ruled.
Frank Feehan QC, for Mrs Sharp, earlier argued that a 50-50 split of assets would be ‘unprincipled’ and ‘unfair’.
Throughout their time together, the couple maintained largely separate finances, he added, ‘earning and spending their own money’.
They took turns to pick up the bill when dining out and Mr Sharp himself accepted the ‘bonuses were not his’.
At the time of the ruling, divorce lawyer Alex Carruthers, partner at Hughes Fowler Carruthers said: ‘This groundbreaking ruling ultimately dictates that marriage is no longer a financial partnership in some circumstances. This raises far more questions than it answers.
It opens the way for countless legal and philosophical arguments. There was previously no legal distinction between a ‘short’ and a ‘long’ marriage, and therefore no defined point after which wealth generated should be shared.
The only clarity provided by this judgment is that there is now a further issue for divorcing couples to bicker about, and for lawyers to profit from.’