White v Withers, a dish of 42 ingredients

The case of Marco Pierre White, celebrity chef, against his wife’s divorce lawyers, Withers, gets a mention in The Times today (”Marco Pierre White challenge could change divorce battles for ever”), speculating on the possible outcome later this year.  The chef contends that his soon to be ex-wife Mati, intercepted his post and retained original documents and letters addressed to him, and that she did so acting on the advice of her lawyer, Marcus Dearle.

This is a common scenario, happening in the homes of many divorcing couples. A bank statement here, a lover’s text there, are intercepted and passed to the lawyers to use in argument, to be disclosed in so-called Hildebrand schedules.

Where this case differs (apart from involving a chef well-known for strong opinions), is that Mati did not intercept and copy the originals, before letting them through, - she retained them and handed them to her lawyers. It appears they compounded that controversial approach by taking time to disclose the 42 documents existed. One was a contract from P & O for White and another was a heart-rending letter to White from his estranged daughter, Letty. The justification for this, denied by White, is that he made the not very imaginative threat  to his wife (given the difficult economy for restaurateurs, even the famous) that she wouldn’t get a penny, that he’d live abroad, and that he’d give his property away rather than see her share in it (or words to that effect).

In a hearing last year before the Court of Appeal, White successfully appealed against Mr Justice Eady’s initial  conclusion that Withers had no case to answer and judges of that Court expressed some differing views.

Lord Justice Wilson thought he detected “…a powerful case that the present civil action represents satellite litigation of an unwholesome kind, not genuinely founded on damage suffered but, rather, designed both to destabilise prosecution of the wife’s claims against the claimant [Marco Pierre White] and to secure vengeance for perceived wrongs perpetrated by the defendants [Withers]in providing the wife with the expertise with which energetically to challenge his assertion that in effect he had no money with which to maintain her.”

On the other hand, Lord Justice Ward felt that “The interception and retention of Letty’s letter, more than the P & O contract, leaves me with such an uncomfortable feeling that for my part I would be reluctant to shut out the claimant [Marco Pierre White] and deny him his day in court.”

If White wins, some are predicting serious consequences, with the curbing of the current fairly widespread practice of copying documents supposedly left lying around, as an aid to the court having the full picture on ancillary relief hearings. Solicitors may also find themselves obliged to have a written record of advice to clients on this subject. 

If White loses, the possibilities are equally grave – with ever more audacious harvesting of documentation by opposing spouses likely to follow.