Former banker who is separated from his royal toymaker wife, loses £1m court battle to reclaim damages

A millionaire former banker who tried to sue his own legal team after his royal toymaker wife ran off with more than £2million in their divorce has had his claims thrown out in the High Court.

Mark Niemann, 63, took Withers LLP to a central London court to argue his ex-wife Janet Niemann, 47 – whose swing set was once bought as a gift for Prince George – received £1m more because of the firm’s ‘negligence’. advice

Mr Neiman, a former UBS stockbroker, put £3m into the family home and a sprawling farm near Canterbury – home to the luxury Airbnb business – in the deal, as well as cash and around £1m of company shares.

But he felt more honored after giving his wife three cottages, her £800,000 new home, a holiday home in Norway, her gift company, £400,000 of shares in her UBS pension and a cash lump sum of £695,000.

Although Withers LLP said it was a ‘classic case of hindsight’ in which the client wished things had been done differently ‘for a better outcome’, Ms Neiman was awarded 39 per cent of the family’s net worth, which is Much less than the more common 50-50 split for long marriages like theirs.

Mr Justice Andrew Baker concurred in that decision Mr Neiman couldn’t blame his lawyers, especially after hammering out key parts of the 2017 deal with his ex ‘over the kitchen table’ – including privately agreeing to pay him a £1m lump sum and signing the deal without telling his legal team. .

Mr Neiman will now owe the law firm £35,000 in unpaid bills after they successfully filed a counter-claim.

The court heard how Mr Neiman had a successful 20-year career in the City as a stock-broker, later working at investment bank UBS, where he met his future wife Janet – a highly paid accountant – in 1998.

They married in 2000 and have two children, a nanny, enjoying a ‘very good standard of living’ with private schooling and expensive holidays.

After the birth of her children, Ms Neiman gave up her job and devoted herself to the family, and in 2005, Mr Neiman – then in his 40s – retired to Kent to ‘pursue country life and less stressful interests’.

There, Mrs Neiman set up her now thriving business, The Oak and Rope Company, which specializes in ‘high quality gifts’ made from oak and rope, the judge said.

‘The company was successful. Its products are popular. It has a contract with the John Lewis Partnership and has been purchased by the Royal Family of Swing as a birthday present for Prince George,’ he said.

However, the marriage fell apart and, in the summer of 2015, Mrs Niemann told her husband – who was in ill health and ‘deeply saddened’ at the news – that she wanted a divorce.

The court heard that the attorneys’ bills associated with the divorce were minimized when he advised him to settle with Withers LLP.

‘Keeping costs down was an important concern for him throughout,’ the judge said, adding that the firm had been instructed to work in the background because Mr Neiman wanted a ‘kitchen table’ divorce, with direct negotiations between the former couple.

But the pair were unable to come to a full settlement until Ms Neiman issued a legal claim, resulting in a court-approved settlement in 2017 that left her with more than £2million in assets and cash.

The deal resulted in Mr Neiman receiving the £3m family home and farm at Upper Park Gate Farm, near Canterbury, as well as cash and shares worth around £1m in various companies.

Mrs Niemann received three cottages, her £800,000 new home, a holiday home in Norway, her gift company, £400,000 shares in her UBS pension and a lump sum cash payment of £695,000.

Suing the law firm, Mr Niemann claimed the outcome was unfair and he should not have shared his UBS pension with his ex or paid more than £100,000 as a lump sum.

His lawyers failed to ‘advise him well’ about the difference between assets brought into the marriage and assets built up during the relationship, leading to him agreeing to a worse deal than he should have, he claimed.

But acting for Withers, barrister Amanda Savage QC denied her lawyers were negligent, pointing out that Mr Neiman had carried out most of the negotiations himself and signed off without telling them.

He had agreed to pay Ms Neiman £1m in cash in 2016, without telling his lawyers, and Withers had managed to help her negotiate £695,000, plus a share of her pension, she said.

‘It is a striking feature of this case that Mr Neiman did not intend or instruct Withers to act on a ‘wholesale’ basis, but rather advised him in the background to negotiate directly with Janet for a divorce settlement. kitchen table’, sometimes using a mutual friend as a mediator,’ she told the court.

‘The facts and details of these direct discussions were often not communicated to Withers or until concessions had been made in the negotiations.’

He added that Withers LLP was often asked to comment on matters that had already been discussed or agreed between Mr and Ms Neiman, and often on the basis of incomplete information.

And she accused Mr Niemann of ‘rewriting history’ by saying he should not have been advised to share his pension – when it was his idea.

In the end, Ms Niemann took about 39 per cent of the family’s net worth, which was a ‘good result’ for Mr Niemann after a long marriage, as it could easily have been split 50-50.

‘It has been argued that this claim is a classic case of hindsight, and is an example of the claimant wishing he had acted differently and achieved a better outcome,’ she said.

She added: ‘Niman has no real prospect of obtaining a good outcome on the underlying claim, either at settlement or at trial.’

Sentencing the case, Mr Justice Andrew Baker said Mr Neiman was keen to keep costs down and wanted to deal directly with his wife.

But although he was ‘honest to the court’ Mr Neiman’s recollections of his time show him to be ‘not a reliable historian of material events.’

‘The idea to offer pension shares as a quid pro quo for a small cash sum came from Mr Neiman, not Withers,’ he said.

‘Mr Neiman always regarded it as an advantageous arrangement.

‘I take the true position that, unless any financial package for Mrs Neiman would have included a substantial payment from Mr Neiman, he would have offered some or all of the cash sums in preference to pension sharing rather than liability.’

‘I conclude that the negligence claim against Withers fails,’ the judge said, adding that Mr Neiman’s evidence was ‘all over the place’ that he would have done things differently given different advice.

Withers’ counter-claim for payment of around £35,000 in unpaid bills was allowed.