The ex-wife of a multi-millionaire businessman whose family founded the Screwfix chain is waiting to see whether she has won the latest leg of a cash battle after complaining about being left with less than 10% of assets worth more than £80 million.
Julia Goddard-Watts, 58, and James Goddard-Watts, 57, staged the latest round of a long-running fight at the Court of Appeal in London on Thursday, following the breakdown of their relationship of more than 20 years.
A barrister representing Mrs Goddard-Watts told three appeal judges that a ruling by a judge in the Family Division of the High court meant that she was walking away with £7.4 million, and Mr Goddard-Watts was left with £75 million.
Peter Mitchell KC said decisions by Sir Jonathan Cohen earlier this year meant that Mrs Goddard-Watts would be left with less than 10% of assets.
Mrs Goddard-Watts would exit with £7.4 million... Mr Goddard-Watts would exit with £75 million— Peter Mitchell KC
Mrs Goddard-Watts wants decisions made by Sir Jonathan overturned – Mr Goddard-Watts says her appeal should be dismissed.Lady Justice Macur, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lady Justice Car considered competing arguments and are expected to deliver a ruling later this year.
Judges have heard that Mr and Mrs Goddard-Watts married in 1996, separated in 2009 and reached an agreement over money, which was approved by a judge, in 2010.
Mr Goddard-Watts had agreed that Mrs Goddard-Watts should get a house worth £3.25 million and a £4 million lump sum.
She subsequently complained that he had not revealed the full extent of his wealth.
A judge then concluded that Mr Goddard-Watts had “given a false presentation” when making the 2010 agreement, and, in 2016, he was told to hand Mrs Goddard-Watts more than £6 million.
Mrs Goddard-Watts returned to court again in 2018 and made further complaints.
She said Mr Goddard-Watts had not given full detail about the potential value of a deal he was involved in.
A judge ruled in her favour in late 2019.
Mr Justice Holman said, if the pair could not agree on a sum, a judge should again reassess evidence and decide whether Mrs Goddard-Watts should get more money.
Sir Jonathan reconsidered the case in January 2022 and awarded Mrs Goddard-Watts, who had wanted more than £13 million, another £1.1 million.
There was no consideration by the judge of the fairness of these respective figures— Peter Mitchell KC
“Overall, including the award of £1.1 million, Mrs Goddard-Watts would exit with £7.4 million,” Mr Mitchell told appeal judges in a written argument.
“Mr Goddard-Watts would exit with £75 million.”
He added: “There was no consideration by the judge of the fairness of these respective figures.”
Mr Mitchell also said appeal judges had to consider whether “a person” who had obtained court orders “through fraud” should be entitled “nonetheless to benefit from their fraud”.
Tim Bishop KC, who represented Mr Goddard-Watts, said the appeal should be dismissed.
He said the “justification” for Sir Jonathan’s judgment was “clear” and could not be “faulted”.
“The judge’s decision was within the parameters of his discretion,” Mr Bishop added, in a written argument.
“Consequently, the award should not be disturbed, and the appeal should be dismissed.”
Mr Mitchell told appeal judges that the pair had met when Mr Goddard-Watts was in the RAF and had married in 1996.
Mr Goddard-Watts had “joined” with his parents in their “modest hardware business”.
“Through the parties’, Mr Goddard-Watts’s parents and Mr Goddard-Watts’s brother’s endeavours, that business was transformed and was sold for £85 million in 1999,” said Mr Mitchell.
“From this sale, Mr Goddard-Watts received £15 million net.
“The parties applied these proceeds towards the building of the former matrimonial home near Yeovil (Somerset) and, amongst other things, the purchase of a fine holiday home in Mallorca, and a yacht.
“It also supported the parties’ very good lifestyle.”
He said Mr Goddard-Watts had gone on to pursue new business ventures.
Lawyer Ros Bever, who is based at law firm Irwin Mitchell and represents Ms Goddard-Watts, said outside court: “Our client is asking the Court of Appeal to review the High Court’s decision. In this case assets were not shared because Julia and/or the court were unaware of their existence or value.”
