The High Court dismissed the claim of a wealthy ex-banker who attempted to sue his own legal team after discovering that his royal toymaker wife received more than £2 million in their divorce settlement.
Mark Nieman, 63, sued Withers LLP in a court in central London, claiming that the firm’s “negligent” advice caused his ex-wife Jeanette Nieman, 47—whose swing set was previously purchased as a gift for Prince George—to get £1 million more than she should have.
In the purchase, Mr. Nieman, a former stockbroker for UBS, kept the £3 million family home and the expansive farm outside Canterbury, which now houses a posh Airbnb business, together with cash and about £1 million in company shares.
But after leaving with three cottages, a new home worth £800,000, a vacation property in Norway, her own presents firm, a £400,000 portion of his UBS pension, and a lump sum cash payment of £695,000, he believed his wife had been given too much.
While Ms. Nieman received 39% of the family’s total assets, which is much less than the more typical 50-50 split for long marriages like theirs, Withers LLP said it was a “classic case of hindsight” in which a client wishes they had done things differently “for a better result.”
Mr. Justice Andrew Baker agreed, saying Mr. Nieman could not place the blame on his attorneys, especially after negotiating key terms of the 2017 agreement with his ex-girlfriend “over the kitchen table,” including agreeing to give her a lump sum payment of £1 million and signing the document secretly.
Following a successful counterclaim, the legal firm’s outstanding bills of £35,000 must now be paid by Mr. Nieman.
The court had been told of Mr. Nieman’s successful 20-year career as a stockbroker in the City. Later in his career, he worked for investment firm UBS, where he eventually met his future wife Jeanette, a wealthy accountant, in 1998.
With a nanny, special tuition, and pricey vacations, they enjoyed a “quite decent standard of living” after getting married in 2000 and having two children.
Ms. Nieman left her career after the birth of their children to focus on the family, and in 2005, Mr. Nieman—then in his 40s—retired to Kent to “pursue the rural life and less stressful pursuits.”
The Oak and Rope Company, which specialises in “high-quality gifts” fashioned from oak and rope, was founded there by Ms. Nieman, according to the judge.
“The business was successful. Its goods are well-liked. It has contracts with the John Lewis Partnership, and the royal family even bought a swing for Prince George’s birthday, he claimed.
The marriage eventually fell apart, and in the summer of 2015, Ms. Nieman informed her sickly husband—who was “very upset” by the news—that she wanted a divorce.
The court heard that when Mr. Nieman contacted Withers LLP for advice on reaching a settlement, minimising the legal fees related to the divorce had been at the front of his thoughts.
The judge stated that “keeping costs down was a big concern of his throughout,” adding that the firm had been given the go-ahead to operate covertly because Mr. Nieman desired a divorce that was settled at the “kitchen table,” or directly between the former spouse.
However, the parties were unable to reach a final deal until Ms Nieman filed a lawsuit.
This led to a court-approved settlement in 2017 that gave Ms Nieman assets and cash worth more than £2 million.
In exchange for the £3 million family house and farm at Upper Park Gate Farm, close to Canterbury, Mr. Nieman received cash and approximately £1 million worth of shares in various firms.
Three cottages, her new £800,000 home, a vacation home in Norway, her gift business, a £400,000 portion of his UBS pension, and a lump sum cash payout of £695,000 were all received by Ms. Nieman.
Mr. Nieman sued the legal firm on the grounds that the outcome was unfair and that he shouldn’t have had to split his UBS pension with his ex-girlfriend or give her a lump sum payment of more than £100,000 to her.
He argued that his lawyers’ failure to “fully counsel” him on the difference between assets acquired before and after the marriage led him to accept a lower settlement than he should have received.
However, representing Withers, attorney Amanda Savage QC refuted claims that his attorneys were careless, pointing out that Mr. Nieman had carried out the most of the bargaining on his own and signed without informing them.
Without telling his lawyers, he had agreed to pay Ms. Nieman a cash payment of £1 million in 2016, but Withers had been able to knock that down to £695,000 plus a portion of his pension, she claimed.
She told the court, “It is noteworthy in this case that Mr. Nieman did not want or instruct Withers to act on a “wholesale” basis, but rather wanted them to advise him in the background with a view to negotiating the divorce settlement with Jeanette directly, “over the kitchen table,” at times using a mutual friend as an intermediary.
It was frequently not until after compromises had been made in the negotiations that Withers was informed of the fact and specifics of these direct discussions, if at all.
She continued by saying that Withers LLP had frequently been requested to comment on issues that Mr. and Ms. Nieman had already discussed or even agreed upon, and frequently on the basis of insufficient information.
She further said that Mr. Nieman was “rewriting history” by saying he should not have been encouraged to share his pension when it was actually his decision in the first place.
After a protracted marriage, Mr. Nieman considered the final outcome, in which Ms. Nieman received around 39% of the family’s total assets, a “decent result” because a 50-50 split was possible.
It is argued that this claim is a classic example of hindsight bias and a case of the claimant wishing they had done things differently and gotten a better outcome, she said.
There is no real chance that Mr. Nieman would have obtained a better outcome in the underlying claim, whether through settlement or at trial, she said.
In his decision, Mr. Justice Andrew Baker noted that Mr. Nieman had wished to settle the lawsuit directly with his wife in order to reduce costs.
Although Mr. Nieman had been “honest with the court,” his memory of the events at the time made him “not a competent historian of the material occurrences.”
He said that Mr. Nieman, not Withers, had the notion to provide a pension share in exchange for a smaller cash payment.
Mr. Nieman has always seen it as a win-win situation.
“I view the genuine position to be that Mr. Nieman would have preferred and provided a pension share in place of part or all of the cash sum requirement, so long as any financial package for Ms. Nieman comprised a considerable payment from Mr. Nieman,” says the author.
The judge concluded that Withers’ negligence claim was unsuccessful and noted that Mr. Nieman’s testimony was “all over the place” in terms of what he said he would have done differently if given other guidance.
The counterclaim made by Withers for payment of roughly £35,000 in outstanding bills was accepted.