Two women who say they were "duped" into accepting "unfair" divorce settlements are appealing to have them overturned in the Supreme Court. Hold on, let me play the world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin.

ArgKyckling · 2015-06-08T11:59:13+00:00

That poor woman only got 10 million of her husbands money. How will she survive?

2015-06-08T15:22:27+00:00

I want to meet this solicitor. One client wants more money based on conjecture around a future flotation that could possibly raise the value of the company, and the other client wants a greater portion of illegally obtained funds.

Good luck with that.

2015-06-08T19:45:02+00:00

Marriage is nuts. Women turn into fat, old ugly harpies who then try and steal your hard earned money.

If you really want kids become a big brother to a neglected boy and help someone who deserves it instead of being a charity case for some fat cunt.

modern_rabbit · 2015-06-08T15:17:04+00:00

"We're not responsible for our own actions and decisions, the men are!"

efirelines · 2015-06-08T13:24:11+00:00

Remember gents do not get married. Lift, and get a paternity test. This is the modern mans creed.

SupremeAuthority · 2015-06-08T21:52:22+00:00

Bunch of gold diggers.

Never get married.

TacoNinjaSkills · 2015-06-08T14:43:53+00:00

Eh. As usual a case that brings to light some of the issues that skirts the important ones entirely. Like it or not, these men hid assets from the court. What I think matters is why. Maybe, just maybe, the ruling will address the fundamental unfairness of the current straight split system and people wont have to hide assets.

DroogDim · 2015-06-08T20:19:51+00:00

Their argument wasn't that they were duped, but that their ex-husbands perpetuated a fraud.

mikesteane · 2015-06-09T08:10:50+00:00

Courts turning a blind eye to dishonesty?

Time to look at the way divorcing women lie about their partner's allegedly abusive behaviour.

2015-06-15T20:50:42+00:00

She wants to be paid, not based in his assets, but by a potential future valuation of his company...no. fuck her

paragonofcynicism · 2015-06-08T17:32:52+00:00

I think the first woman might have a valid case but only if the statement that the higher valuation of the company wasn't just speculation as was argued originally.

The second woman though has no case. If the valuation of her husbands wealth changes based on the fact that he had illegally laundered money she has no claim on that illegal money unless she wants to face jail time for being a party to that laundering.

Comments