Disabled crash victim fights to save his home as ex-wife wins most of his £500,000 damages



Kevin Mansfield met his wife ten years after losing his leg in a car crash in 1992



They had two children before end of five-year marriage



Judge says she should get £285,000 of the compensation payout which is his only means of support.

Only means of support: Kevin Mansfield at court today. He is fighting to protect the £500,000 compensation payment he lives on.

A man left disabled after a road crash could be forced to sell his home after a judge ordered him to hand more than half his compensation payout to his ex-wife.

Kevin Mansfield, 41, lost a leg and suffered serious spinal injuries when he was hit by a car in 1992.

He received £500,000 compensation in 1998, five years before he met Cathryn, 37. The couple married in 2003 and had two children but split up five years later.

And in a landmark ruling, Cathryn was awarded more than half the damages payment, even though it was intended specifically to make Mr Mansfield’s life easier.

The judge said the money should be regarded simply as an asset of the marriage, and that £285,000 should go to Mrs Mansfield.

Mr Mansfield has now been granted permission to have the case heard at the civil division of the Court of Appeal in London after complaining that the money is his only means of support. If he loses the case, he says, he will have to sell the home, which has been specially adapted for his needs, and move away from his children in Chelmsford, Essex, to a less expensive part of the county.

Mr Mansfield was a student when he was hit by a car while standing in a lay-by on a bypass in Launceston, Cornwall, in 1992.

His right leg was amputated and spinal injuries left his left leg partially paralysed. He can walk using two sticks but often needs a wheelchair and will have to rely on it more in future.

He used the compensation to buy a specially-adapted bungalow and a flat as an investment property, and went on to meet and marry his wife. The couple had twins, a boy and a girl now aged four, before separating.

The court heard that Mrs Mansfield took cash and assets worth £50,000 with her when she left and had since bought a £226,000 home.

The couple share custody of the children, with Mr Mansfield having them for six days every fortnight.

At a divorce hearing at Chelmsford County Court last May, a judge ruled the compensation should be ‘put in the pot’ of assets to be divided and went on to award just over half to Mrs Mansfield.

'Point of principle'; Lord Justice Thorpe, left, said Mr Mansfield deserved the right to appeal the award to his ex-wife Catherine, pictured at the Court of Appeal today, right.



But now Lady Justice Black has given Mr Mansfield permission to appeal, saying ‘the only capital arises from the damages awarded and he met the wife in circumstances of enduring disability’.

She added: ‘The husband’s disabilities and amputated limb are an important factor in this case.’

Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with her in the Court of Appeal, said the circumstances raised ‘an important point of principle’, adding: ‘If we say “Go away” today and don’t grant permission to appeal, we are rubber-stamping an injustice.’

'It could happen to any war vet coming back from Afghanistan. They could get compensation, then meet someone years later and have it taken away'

However, the judges urged the couple, who have already spent around £40,000 each on the dispute, to try to settle their differences through mediation to avoid the ‘potentially enormous legal costs’ of a full Appeal Court hearing.

Alan Barton, representing Mr Mansfield at the Court of Appeal last Thursday, said his client had suffered a ‘manifest injustice’.

He added: ‘Where a wife marries a husband who is seriously disabled and all the assets come from his damages, how far do his needs . . . have a priority over the ideal situation that the wife would like to be in?’

The divorce judge, he said, had ‘over-prioritised’ the needs of the two ‘normal, healthy children’.

A full hearing will take place before three judges at a date to be set unless the couple settle beforehand.

Mr Mansfield said afterwards: ‘This is such an important case. I want everyone to know the same could happen to them.

‘Any war veteran coming back from Afghanistan could get compensation, then meet someone years later and have it taken away.’

Mrs Mansfield could not be contacted yesterday.