News

Henry Hood examines the Mandy Gray case and retrieving luxury assets in The Times

  • June 25, 2019
  • By Henry Hood, Partner

Wealth managers will have been wincing last week as they read reports of the dispute between Mandy Gray and her former personal trainer Hamish Hurley.

Having persuaded the English courts that she was entitled to half of her ex-husband’s $225 million fortune, against his rigorous opposition, Ms Gray seems to have spent the greater part of it, in the few short years since, in an orgy of gratuitous and perhaps irrecoverable expenditure.

But more widely this demonstrates the lottery-like nature of the legal proceedings that this type of case creates.

The money that went on high living is gone, as is the £7 million invested in Hurley’s failed business.

However, significant assets remain in the form of land in Italy and New Zealand, investments, and supercars that alone are worth nearly £5 million.

Ms Gray would like these back and they are of a value, cumulatively, to allow her to live well, so long as she is more measured in her spending.

But will she get them? In legal proceedings here and in New Zealand, different stories are emerging as to the purpose of the expenditure and who owns the remaining assets.

It is bad enough for Ms Gray that these are to a significant extent in Mr Hurley’s name, but even deciding which country’s courts can make a decision will be tortuous and expensive. Mr Hurley has issued proceedings in New Zealand — where he lives — which is a jurisdiction where assets can be awarded to parties who have been in unmarried relationships.

Ms Gray argues that the proceedings should be heard in England, which has no such power. Just deciding which it is to be will take time.

Even once that is decided Mr Hurley is likely to say that Ms Gray gave him the assets. Perhaps she did — how else, he might ask, did the assets become registered in his name?

There is likely to be a battle royal somewhere as to what she really meant to do. One can almost guarantee that there will be no formal documentation and so success or failure will turn on recollections of conversations, texts and emails, all of which the former lovers will attempt to show meant whatever now serves their purpose. Hence the lottery metaphor.

And it will be an expensive game. Neither jurisdiction would have the authority to decide the ownership of land in Italy, and Ms Gray will need more lawyers there and anywhere else where such assets are situated.

She seems doomed to conduct legal proceedings in several parts of the world at huge cost in time and money, all with an uncertain outcome.

A horse-trade may be the only answer — with Ms Gray marking down the substantial funds that she may never recover as the cost of an expensive lesson in how not to manage the fortune that remains to her.

This article was originally published in The Times, here

Related News

Jul 19, 2019
Rebecca Christie examines why married farmers should consider legal protection in The Law Society Gazette
Jul 09, 2019
Henry Hood and Anna Roiser examine the Mandy Gray case in LexisNexis Family Law
Jul 01, 2019
Rebecca Christie examines the rise of PR and media in family court proceedings, in WealthBriefing
Jun 20, 2019
Hazel Wright and Anna Roiser examine the new legislation that heterosexual couples will be able to enter into civil partnerships in Spear’s
Jun 10, 2019
Rebecca Christie comments on the Challen case in The Guardian
May 31, 2019
Amy Scollan examines what a no deal Brexit might mean for family law cases with European connections
May 30, 2019
Rebecca Christie examines the Challen case in Lawyer Monthly
May 22, 2019
Henry Hood discusses the division of private corporate assets on divorce in Legalease’s Family Law Journal
May 17, 2019
Henry Hood wins the Career Achievement Award at the Citywealth Magic Circle Awards 2019
May 15, 2019
Hetty Gleave examines sensitive family proceedings and public confidence in The Times

© Hunters Law LLP 2019 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)