Scorned wives locked in battle over bigamist husband's £1.8m fortune after he secretly married BOTH of them
WILL ROW Scorned wives locked in battle over bigamist husband's £1.8m fortune after he secretly married BOTH of them
TWO wives are locked in a battle over their bigamist husband's £1.8million fortune after he secretly married both of them.
Accountant James Dinsdale died of cancer aged 55 in October 2020 - leaving second wife Margaret Dinsdale to sort his affairs.
Advertisement
4
Margaret Dinsdale discovered her late husband was already married
Credit: Champion News Service
4
He was still married to first wife Victoria Fowell
Credit: Supplied by Champion News
But the 41-year-old beautician found out James was still legally married to his first wife Victoria Fowell.
The discovery meant her marriage was "void" - leaving Dinsdale with no automatic right to inherit the £1.8million fortune.
Both women are now battling at the High Court after she claimed she deserved a share of the cash as she married James "in good faith".
The court heard James married Fowell - a cosmetic dentist - in 2012 after whisking her off to Las Vegas.
Advertisement
But the pair never got divorced and he wed Dinsdale five years later at a Vegas chapel just 600m from his first wedding location.
Dinsdale's lawyer said she had no clue James was still married and believed the money would be shared between her and her husband's son William under intestacy rules.
Jonathan Davey KC added: "She understood the marriage between the deceased and Dr Fowell to have ended some time prior to the relationship between the deceased and the claimant beginning.
"We have no idea what James' state of mind was, perhaps he didn't realise he wasn't divorced.
Advertisement
"Margaret's assertion is that she believed the deceased to be unmarried and already divorced when she married him in good faith."
Dinsdale has made a claim for "reasonable provision" from James' estate under the 1975 Inheritance Act, amounting to at least half of his £1.8million.
The bid has been brought against both Fowell and James' 28-year-old son William.
Mr Davey said James and Dinsdale had a "loving relationship" and that she looked after him "24 hours a day" after he was diagnosed with cancer.
Advertisement
He added: "She and James had a relatively lavish lifestyle, which was funded by his wealth and she was entirely financially dependent on the deceased," he said.
"Dr Fowell and William Dinsdale were not being financially maintained by the deceased at the time of his death."
The court heard Dinsdale has already reportedly received £375,000 "from the estate or in sums derived from James" but her lawyer claims the amount is £20,000.
High Court judge Master James Brightwell allocated the cash-strapped second wife £50,000 from the estate to help cover her bills and contribute towards hefty lawyers' bills as the case progresses.
Advertisement
He directed there should now be a future hearing focusing on how James' estate should be divided up between his two wives and son.
Under the Inheritance Act, payouts to those treated as a spouse or civil partner are higher than to unmarried partners of a deceased person.
4
James Dinsdale died of cancer in 2020
Credit: Supplied by Champion News
4
Dinsdale has launched a bid at the High Court
Credit: Champion News Service
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
11 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Instrotec rescue plan approved
Examiner Joe Walsh's rescue plan for Westport-based Instrotec Ireland, which saves the jobs of 480 workers, was approved on Thursday by Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds in the High Court. Judge Reynolds complimented the pragmatic attitude taken by the Revenue Commissioners in deciding to accept the deferment of significant payments due to them in order to save so many jobs. The court was told that Revenue was not objecting to the scheme of rescue arrangement proposed by Mr Walsh, of JW Accountants, who had been appointed as examiner to the company. Counsel for Revenue said the jobs included apprentices and those employed in external agency contracts. Judge Reynolds said the court considered the examiner's scheme of arrangement fair and equitable to all parties and would protect jobs. She said Revenue's attitude was very helpful in ensuring the survival of the company. The court heard that Instrotec was a specialist electrical and instrumentation contractor which works on complex projects such as data centres and semiconductor and pharmaceutical facilities as well as oil and gas plants in Ireland and Europe. It has 172 apprentices on its books, making it one of the largest trainers of skilled workers in the country. The High Court had been told earlier that the company had a reasonable prospect of survival based on an independent accountant's report prior to the appointment of Mr Walsh as examiner. Instrotec, which was founded in 2000 by Donal and Donna Johnston, faced an 'exceptionally challenging' period in the first quarter of this year as three large projects all became loss-making. At the time, Donal Johnston, a time-served electrician with extensive instrumentation and control experience, had identified an opportunity in the market for a specialist contractor in the field of electrical instrumentation and instrument pipefitting. By coupling this specialist expertise with the provision of traditional industrial electrical systems, Instrotec quickly established a reputation in the growing pharmaceutical and microprocessor manufacturing sectors as the foremost contractor in the provision of instrumentation and control systems. In recent years, Instrotec expanded on its existing electrical portfolio to establish a proven track record in the installation of various low voltage and medium voltage electrical systems across a broad range of sectors and to the highest of industry standards Through strengthening this branch of the company Instrotec had become uniquely positioned to provide an all-encompassing service across instrumentation and control, building management and industrial electrical systems.
Irish Times
11 hours ago
- Irish Times
High Court judge says judgments should avoid Latin and ‘terms of art'
A High Court judge has said judgments should avoid using Latin terms or 'terms of art' and be written in 'plain language' that a 'reasonably intelligent' lay person will understand. Judgments should, where possible, seek to use 'plain English' over expressions generally known only to lawyers, Mr Justice Michael Twomey said. In the application before him, the judge opted to use the terms 'usual' and 'enhanced' costs, instead of referring to 'party and party' costs and 'legal practitioner and client' costs, terms used by lawyers. Using the legal terms would mean 'double-Dutch' to a lay person, he said. READ MORE He made the remarks when refusing to award legal practitioner and client costs – the highest level of costs – against property investment company Propiteer Ireland Ltd, which discontinued proceedings initiated last December against Castlehaven Property Finance DAC and three other companies. Propiteer must pay the defendants' costs on the usual basis up to the discontinuance, he ruled. He said Castlehaven must pay Propiteer's costs, again on the usual basis, for successfully defending the former's application for enhanced costs, he held. When a court makes the usual costs order, it has 'no control' over how the costs are calculated because that is done by the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators in line with rules and legislation passed by the Oireachtas, he said. For many decades, the judiciary has pointed out that the usual costs in High Court cases 'are anything but reasonable in amount'. Even a usual costs order would mean Propiteer would have to pay a sum 'anything but reasonable' for legal services provided to Castlehaven. An enhanced costs order is only made in exceptional cases and the amount payable under that is 'even more prohibitive' than in the usual costs order, he said. Propiteer commenced proceedings on December 11th last against Castlehaven, Clondalkin Urban Development Ltd, Pearlvale Ltd and Arbeten Ltd, and the case was admitted to the fast-track Commercial Court last February. Propiteer alleged breach of contractual and fiduciary obligations, conspiracy and actions contrary to its financial interests. A pretrial defence application was listed for hearing in July, but Propiteer discontinued the proceedings on the eve of that hearing. Castlehaven then sought enhanced costs for reasons including the proceedings were grounded on an affidavit by David Marshall, who swore to be a director of Propiteer when he was not. The judge said there was no sworn evidence in relation to Propiteer's or Mr Marshall's motivation for instituting the proceedings. A submission by Castlehaven that it was to benefit Mr Marshall's debt arrangement in the UK 'amounted to speculation'. There was no court finding that the proceedings were taken for an ulterior motive because the case was discontinued without the court having made any findings of fact. While Castlehaven was subject to an injustice because it had to defend proceedings brought on a false basis, the question was whether Propiteer, which would be punished by the usual costs order, should be further punished by an enhanced costs order. Propiteer's conduct was not so 'egregious' to warrant an enhanced costs order against it, he held. Propiteer did 'the right thing' in discontinuing its case at a very early stage, saving court time and costs, despite having initiated its proceedings on a false basis. Earlier, in considering the issue of language in judgments, he said the rule of law states the law 'must be accessible and so far as possible, intelligible, clear and predictable'. Making judgments more easily accessible to the reasonably intelligent layperson should make the system better for litigants, he added.
The Irish Sun
15 hours ago
- The Irish Sun
Scorned wives locked in battle over bigamist husband's £1.8m fortune after he secretly married BOTH of them
Accountant wed both women in Vegas chapels just 600m apart WILL ROW Scorned wives locked in battle over bigamist husband's £1.8m fortune after he secretly married BOTH of them TWO wives are locked in a battle over their bigamist husband's £1.8million fortune after he secretly married both of them. Accountant James Dinsdale died of cancer aged 55 in October 2020 - leaving second wife Margaret Dinsdale to sort his affairs. Advertisement 4 Margaret Dinsdale discovered her late husband was already married Credit: Champion News Service 4 He was still married to first wife Victoria Fowell Credit: Supplied by Champion News But the 41-year-old beautician found out James was still legally married to his first wife Victoria Fowell. The discovery meant her marriage was "void" - leaving Dinsdale with no automatic right to inherit the £1.8million fortune. Both women are now battling at the High Court after she claimed she deserved a share of the cash as she married James "in good faith". The court heard James married Fowell - a cosmetic dentist - in 2012 after whisking her off to Las Vegas. Advertisement But the pair never got divorced and he wed Dinsdale five years later at a Vegas chapel just 600m from his first wedding location. Dinsdale's lawyer said she had no clue James was still married and believed the money would be shared between her and her husband's son William under intestacy rules. Jonathan Davey KC added: "She understood the marriage between the deceased and Dr Fowell to have ended some time prior to the relationship between the deceased and the claimant beginning. "We have no idea what James' state of mind was, perhaps he didn't realise he wasn't divorced. Advertisement "Margaret's assertion is that she believed the deceased to be unmarried and already divorced when she married him in good faith." Dinsdale has made a claim for "reasonable provision" from James' estate under the 1975 Inheritance Act, amounting to at least half of his £1.8million. The bid has been brought against both Fowell and James' 28-year-old son William. Mr Davey said James and Dinsdale had a "loving relationship" and that she looked after him "24 hours a day" after he was diagnosed with cancer. Advertisement He added: "She and James had a relatively lavish lifestyle, which was funded by his wealth and she was entirely financially dependent on the deceased," he said. "Dr Fowell and William Dinsdale were not being financially maintained by the deceased at the time of his death." The court heard Dinsdale has already reportedly received £375,000 "from the estate or in sums derived from James" but her lawyer claims the amount is £20,000. High Court judge Master James Brightwell allocated the cash-strapped second wife £50,000 from the estate to help cover her bills and contribute towards hefty lawyers' bills as the case progresses. Advertisement He directed there should now be a future hearing focusing on how James' estate should be divided up between his two wives and son. Under the Inheritance Act, payouts to those treated as a spouse or civil partner are higher than to unmarried partners of a deceased person. 4 James Dinsdale died of cancer in 2020 Credit: Supplied by Champion News 4 Dinsdale has launched a bid at the High Court Credit: Champion News Service
