A wife who signed a pre-nup before marrying a multi-millionaire – but still walked away with £90million – now says her payout was ‘unfair’ and is fighting for more.
Property tycoon, Gerard Versteegh, worth £273million, handed bride Camilla Versteegh, then 28, a document on the eve of their wedding.
Mrs Versteegh, now 52, signed away any right to share his wealth and the couple went on to enjoy 21 years of marriage.
The had three children, lived a ‘truly exceptional’ lifestyle, with a £60million family home in Kensington, West London, complete with a 25-metre pool, spa complex, cinema and salon.
Gerard Versteegh, pictured left outside court, married Camilla, pictured, right with her lawyer, Fiona Shackleton on her left, in Sweden and gave her the pre-nuptial document the night before their wedding
But, after their ‘traumatic’ split in 2014, a court battle ensued, ending in January last year when the wife was handed around £90million worth of cash and assets by divorce judge Sir Peter Singer.
He awarded her less than he otherwise would had done, however, due to the pre-nuptial agreement and the effect of the ‘uncertainties’ of Brexit on the business empire of Mr Versteegh, 56.
The wife is now insisting at the Court of Appeal that ‘justice and fairness demands’ that she ought to have got about £25millionaire more.
But her ex says that he has already been ‘generous’ to her, given her signature on the pre-nup, and insists she is not due another penny.
Tim Bishop QC, for the wife, told three senior judges today: ‘Mrs Versteegh is a mother and homemaker. Mr Versteegh is a successful businessman.
‘They were married in Stockholm and immediately moved to England, where they have lived ever since.
The couple lived in a house in Kensington, West London, which was valued at £62.5million, and were married for 21 years
‘On the day before the marriage, 27 August 1993, Mr Versteegh turned up at his bride to be’s home with a pre-marital agreement.
‘She signed it without any legal advice or the opportunity for any legal advice.’
He admitted that the wife agreed to the pre-nup, but said she had not understood the full implications of it and thought it applied only to his inherited wealth.
‘The pre-marital agreement was first presented to the wife and signed by her the day before their wedding. She had no legal advice.
‘The wording of the pre- marital agreement was obscure,’ the barrister added.
‘The wife had no advice on the effect of the agreement on divorce in England, where the parties have lived throughout their married life.
‘The marriage broke down in 2014 in traumatic circumstances. The trust between the parties and ability to co-operate was permanently lost.
‘These feelings have only been exacerbated by a long and acrimonious divorce.’
Mr Bishop argued that the judge ought to have begun from the standpoint of an equal division of the family wealth and handed the wife around £115million.
‘The right of both parties to share equally in the fruits of the partnership, absent some good reason to the contrary, is at the heart of modern family law,’ he said.
‘In practice the judge allowed the pre-marital agreement to displace the sharing principle.
‘Over the course of this long marriage the family accumulated immense wealth. The family home was valued at £62.5million.
‘When the wife moved to England it entailed giving up a career in the music industry, which she enjoyed, and leaving her homeland.
‘This was a case with an immense marital acquest.’
And Mr Bishop argued the divorce judge’s ‘utterly obscure’ decision ‘constituted a huge departure from equality in the husband’s favour.’
Much of the wife’s award was made up of shares – that could not easily be turned into cash – because the judge feared ‘dismemberment or destruction’ of the husband’s business empire.
And the barrister added: ‘The judge was wrong to prioritise the well-being of the husband’s business structure above the provision of the wife with a fair share of the available wealth.
‘The alarming submission in response to the wife’s concerns about never being able to realise the value of the shares…was quite literally “so what?”’
Mr Bishop urged the court that ‘justice and fairness’ demands a re-hearing of the case by a different judge.
Lewis Marks QC, for the husband, told the court Mr Versteegh had already been ‘very generous’ to his ex-wife, given that she had signed away all her rights to his money before they wed.
‘Pre-marital agreements in Sweden are commonplace and binding. The parties were married in Sweden the day after it was signed,’ he said.
‘Under the agreement the parties elected a regime of separate assets.
‘The effect of the agreement, as the wife knew full well, was that she would not have any claims on the husband’s separate wealth.
‘She knew and understood its impact when she signed it the day before the wedding.’
The barrister added: ‘We had tacitly, if not explicitly, accepted that it might be unfair to hold the wife to the full rigours of the agreement by eliminating any entitlement to a share of the accumulated wealth.
Camilla Versteegh signed a prenuptial agreement the night before she married
‘But it provided a justification for a less generous sharing.
‘The effect of the pre-marital agreement was entirely to exclude the sharing principle. That was what the parties agreed.
‘The appeal should be dismissed. The judge found the wife had entered into a pre-marital agreement of which she full well understood the exclusive and all embracing nature.’
The wife had ended up with about a third of the total family wealth and Mr Marks added: ‘Bearing in mind the pre marital agreement, this could be characterised as a very generous proportion.’
Mrs Versteegh got about £55million, plus shares estimated to be worth £27million, and that award, even without cashing in the shares, ‘far exceeded her needs’, he said.
‘The effect of the award is to give the wife a very substantial and liquid fortune, very much more than sufficient to meet her needs, real or imagined.
‘That her share is not equal to the husband’s, in circumstances where she entered into an agreement to stake no claim to a share in any of his assets…does not demonstrate any error of approach by the judge to his central task in the case,’ Mr Marks concluded.
The hearing before Lords Justice Lewison, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Holroyde continues.