The Court of Appeal has rejected claims of “genius” by a former private equity¹ executive, ordering him yesterday to pay his wife ￡72m as it confirmed one of the biggest divorce awards made by the English courts in recent years.

英国上诉法院(Court of Appeal)驳回了一家私募基金前高管所谓“天才”的说法，昨日勒令他向妻子支付7200万英镑，使该案成为近年来英格兰法院作出的数额最高的离婚财产分割判决之一。

The three judges upheld a 2015 decision according to which Randy Work, who was the breadwinner in the marriage, should give his estranged² wife half his assets because the couple had been equal partners in a relationship of more than 20 years.

上诉法院3名法官维持了2015年的一项判决，即在婚姻存续期间负责赚钱养家的兰迪?沃克(Randy Work)，应将半数资产给予已分居的妻子，因为这对夫妇是一段维持超过20年的关系中的平等伴侣。

At the Court of Appeal, Mr Work, a former executive at Lone³ Star, argued he had made an exceptional financial contribution — which the courts have defined as a quality of “genius” — through his wealth-creating skills and that this justified⁴ an unequal division of his wealth in the divorce, thus giving him a greater share of the money.

孤星(Lone Star)前高管沃克在上诉法院辩称，他通过自己创造财富的技能作出了特殊财务贡献（法院将此界定为“天才”质素），这足以证明他有理由在这起离婚案中获得较大份额的财产。

However, Mr Justice Holman, the judge who made the 2015 ruling, found that Mr Work did not make a special financial contribution to the marriage. The judge said the word “genius” was “over-used” and “is properly reserved for Leonardo da Vinci, Mozart, Einstein and others like them.”

然而，2015年对该案作出判决的霍尔曼(Holman)法官认为，沃克并未对这段婚姻作出特殊财务贡献。霍尔曼表示，“天才”一词被“过度使用”，其“只适用于形容莱昂纳多?达芬奇(Leonardo da Vinci)、莫扎特(Mozart)、爱因斯坦(Einstein)那类人。”

He said Mr Work had to show “exceptional and individual quality which deserves special treatment” in order to prove he had made a special financial contribution but had failed to do so.

霍尔曼说，沃克必须展示“值得获得特殊对待的卓越的、与众不同的质素”，才能证明他作出了特殊财务贡献，但他并未做到。

He concluded the couple’s wealth should be split equally and said this would result in the wife receiving around $112m, or ￡72m. Mr Justice Holman’s ruling was upheld by the three Court of Appeal judges, who said Mr Work had failed to prove his case. Mr Work and Ms Gray began living together in 1992, when they had “good but modest jobs”, and were married in 1995. Their marriage ended in 2013.

霍尔曼的结论是，这对夫妇的财产应该平分，因此，妻子一方应得到1.12亿美元（合7200万英镑）。霍尔曼法官的判决得到了上诉法院3名法官的支持，他们称，沃克未能证明自己的主张。1992年，沃克和格雷(Gray)开始同居，那时他们都拥有“不错但算不上优厚的工作”，并于1995年结婚。他们的婚姻在2013年结束。

The Court of Appeal heard that the couple’s wealth was built up over Mr Work’s career with Lone Star in Japan, where his total earnings⁵ exceeded $300m, but his wealth was about $225m by the time the court hearings began.

上诉法院了解到，这对夫妇的财富积累于沃克在日本为孤星工作期间，他在日本的总收入超过了3亿美元，但到庭审开始时他的财产约为2.25亿美元。

Mr Work argued he had applied⁶ “groundbreaking methodologies?.?.?.?to the distressed⁷ debt sector⁸” in Japan while running the Lone Star office, producing total profits of $7bn.

沃克称，他在日本期间将“开创性的方法”应用于“不良债务部门”，同时负责孤星日本办事处的运营，创造了70亿美元的总利润。

The case has been watched because it shows how difficult it is for the courts to depart from the legal principle that wealth should be equally shared upon divorce even when it has been largely built up by the breadwinner.

这起案件受到关注，因为它显示了要让法院背离法律原则——离婚时夫妻财产应平分，即使这些财产大部分是由赚钱养家的一方积累起来的——是多么困难。