What's up with the Scottish media? Are they suddenly growing balls?


"amused onlooker"  wrote in message 
news:pmqaj.26082$zw.5772@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> Millionaire divorcee sets sights on slice of husband No4's fortune
>
> http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Millionaire-divorcee-sets-sights-.3607024.jp
>
> By STEPHEN HOWARD
>
> A WOMAN worth £18 million after three divorces is pursuing her forth 
> husband for a slice of his declared £45 million fortune.
>
> Susan Crossley, who was once married to racing magnate Robert Sangster, 
> claims a pre-nuptial agreement she signed with property developer Stuart 
> Crossley is invalid because he failed to tell her about "tens of millions" 
> more that he had in offshore accounts.
>
> Mr Crossley met his future wife in the summer of 2005 and they were 
> engaged within a few months.
>
> Before their marriage in January 2006, the couple signed a pre-nuptial 
> contract agreeing that they would leave the marriage without making claims 
> against each other if they split up.
>
> Mrs Crossley filed for divorce in August this year, although from June 
> 2006 the couple had lived largely separate lives.
>
> She claimed that because her husband did not disclose accounts which she 
> said could contain up to £60 million in Monaco and Andorra, the agreement 
> was invalid.
>
> In a ground-breaking ruling yesterday, three Court of Appeal judges 
> dismissed Mrs Crossley's bid to head off a hearing in the new year, which 
> will evaluate the "pre-nup" and whether it means her claims against her 
> husband should be thrown out.
>
> When Mrs Crossley initially applied for the full range of financial claims 
> against her husband, he asked the court to order the case be heard in one 
> day.
>
> Mr Justice Bennett, the High Court judge at the initial hearing, agreed 
> and ordered a hearing to consider all the facts of the case and whether 
> Mrs Crossley should be held to the terms of the pre-nuptial contract.
>
> Mr Crossley, who was previously married and has four children, said after 
> that hearing: "This is a fair decision. I am upset that our marriage 
> failed."
>
> Yesterday, Lord Justice Thorpe, giving the Court of Appeal's ruling, said 
> Mr Crossley, 62, was "locked in" a battle over a divorce settlement with 
> his 50-year-old wife.
>
> He said that before they married, Mr and Mrs Crossley employed "highly 
> experienced lawyers" to draft their pre-nup agreement, which allowed them 
> to walk away after a divorce with what they had taken into the marriage.
>
> Lord Thorpe added: "This seems to me to be an entirely appropriate step 
> for the parties to take.
>
> "The marriage was celebrated on 5 January 2006 and seems to have brought 
> little or no happiness to either of the parties."
>
> The marriage soon broke down and Mrs Crossley sued for divorce and brought 
> claims for financial provision from Mr Crossley.
>
> Lord Thorpe said: "That was a development that was not going to go 
> unchallenged given the terms of the pre-nuptial agreement.
>
> "This is a quite exceptional case.
>
> "If ever there is to be a paradigm case in which the courts will look to 
> the pre-nuptial agreement as not simply one of the peripheral factors of 
> the case but a factor of magnetic importance, then it seems to me that 
> this is such a case."
>
> Lawyers for Mr Crossley said the appeal judges had ruled that it was 
> possible to short-circuit normal procedures when a financial claim in a 
> divorce appeared to be hopeless and there was a pre-nuptial contract.
>
> The judges dismissed Mrs Crossley's appeal against Justice Bennett's 
> decision that the facts of the case could be heard in a one-day hearing 
> rather than multiple hearings covering 18 months.
>
> Mr Crossley's lawyers said the final decision after that hearing, to be 
> held in February, should provide long-awaited clarification of the degree 
> to which pre-nuptial agreements are binding in the courts.
>