By Richard Gittins

AN ENGLISH aristocrat related to Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall wants to use Scottish divorce law to cut his wife out of a share of his £5 million family fortune.

Charles Alastair Hyde Villiers, 54, a descendant of Mary Tudor, says his wife Emma Mary Jane Villiers, is “trying it on” in the English courts as a divorce tourist.

Mrs Villiers, 58, wed Mr Villiers – a racehorse owner, publishing baron and scion of one of England’s oldest families – in 1994 and they settled to married life in an 18th-century mansion in Dunbartonshire.

But after 17 years together they separated in 2012.

Mrs Villiers and the couple’s daughter, now 22, set up home in Notting Hill, London, London’s Appeal Court heard. Her husband petitioned for divorce in Scotland in 2014, but three months later Mrs Villers applied to the English courts for financial maintenance.

In March last year, Mrs Justice Parker ordered Mr Villiers to pay her £5,500-a-month, to cover interim maintenance, pending finalisation of the divorce, and her legal bills.

But now Mr Villiers is challenging that ruling, insisting that an English judge had no right to intervene in a Scottish divorce.

Maintenance to ex-spouses is far less generous north of the border, and he says Mrs Villiers has been “rewarded for moving from Scotland to England”.

If his wife wins, Mr Villiers says England will become “the maintenance capital of the United Kingdom” and face an invasion of divorcees from other home nations.

Mr Villiers has family links with Camilla by his mother Elizabeth Keppel, the daughter of Viscount Bury, and the Duchess’ grandmother Sonia Rosemary Keppel.

Despite his lofty heritage, Mr Villiers faced financial troubles that came to a head post-breakup and he was declared bankrupt in 2013.

His assets were seized and, although he was discharged from bankruptcy the next year, the family home was repossessed in 2015. But his wife’s lawyers say he is far from penniless, having a half share in a £3.5m trust fund inherited from his grandmother, plus another £600,000 from his mother.

The total value of his inherited wealth “may be much more” if a London flat held by a family-controlled company is added to the pot, they claim.

Mrs Villiers says she and her daughter need £10,000 a month to live on and that her husband has the means to provide that by tapping into the inherited wealth.

But he insists she must fight her case in Scotland where – crucially – inherited wealth is not taken into account when dividing assets after a marriage founders.

Under Scots law, maintenance payouts are generally limited to just three years after a divorce is finalised, in “marked contrast” to England, where Mrs Villiers could secure financial support for the rest of her life.

In her ruling last year, Mrs Justice Parker accepted that the couple had spent all but one year of married life in Scotland. But she found that Mrs Villiers was habitually resident in England by the time she lodged her maintenance claim.

Mr Villiers’ full appeal will now be heard by a panel of three senior judges on a date yet to be fixed.

The Herald:

Analysis: Case highlights differences in matrimonial law across the Border

By Gillian Crandles, Partner & Head of Family Law, at leading divorce lawyer, Turcan Connell

DIVORCING spouses will normally have their divorce dealt with in the jurisdiction where they are habitually resident.

Sometimes, however, more than one country can have jurisdiction and then there can be a race to issue proceedings wherever may be more favourable to one side or the other.

From the facts of the case, it seems that Mr Villiers won that battle.

The divorce proceedings here would ordinarily deal with all of the financial consequences of the marriage, including the division of capital and ongoing payments of support. Mrs Villiers seems to have managed to persuade the English court to deal with maintenance notwithstanding that the Scottish courts were dealing with the divorce.

There are key differences highlighted between the two jurisdictions.

In Scotland, Mr Villiers wouldn’t have to pay his wife’s legal costs on an ongoing basis – only at the end of the case and only in reasonably unusual circumstances.

He would almost certainly not be expected to support his wife for life.

Ordinarily, the courts wouldn’t look behind a trust as is sought in this case, although funds held in trust for the benefit of one of the parties might be taken into account when considering their resources Inherited wealth wouldn’t be taken into account. Only “matrimonial property” is divided between the parties on divorce.

Company assets wouldn’t be taken into account just because it was “family controlled”, although if shares in a company were matrimonial property the value of those shares would be taken into account and shared fairly between the parties.

If Mr Villiers loses his appeal there may indeed be a stampede to raise divorce and/ or maintenance proceedings in whatever jurisdiction may suit each party’s circumstances, although more and more couples are now choosing to deal with their divorce in less contentious ways.

If compromise simply cannot be reached, arbitration can be an attractive alternative.

Gillian Crandles, Partner & Head of Family Law, at leading divorce lawyer, Turcan Connell.