Property mogul, 61, who used CCTV to spy on wife, 49, wins Appeal Court battle over £6.9m divorce

A millionaire who installed CCTV cameras to spy on his fashionista wife has won his Appeal Court fight to overturn her £3.45m divorce payout after judges ruled his wealth had been ‘overstated’.

Fashion consultant Tracey Ratcliffe had been awarded the sum last year following a divorce court battle with millionaire property mogul ex Nicholas Ratcliffe, which a family judge said was ‘among the most acrimonious’ he had ever dealt with.

During the case, the judge slammed the ‘deplorable level of coercive control’ she had been subjected to by Mr Ratcliffe, who had installed CCTV to monitor her in their home.

In a ‘creepy’ bid to force her out, he had also locked internal doors at their £1.3m Cheshire home to restrict her movements, and left Post-it notes on kitchen items saying ‘clean me.’

The couple married in 1994 and split in 2016, following which Judge Bernard Wallwork last year ordered an equal split of a family fortune he assessed as worth about £6.9m.

Mr Ratcliffe last month appealed, in a move the wife’s lawyers described as another example of his ‘controlling’ behaviour, but was today backed by top judges who had the payout overturned.

Fashion consultant Tracey Ratcliffe

Multi-millionaire property mogul Nicholas Ratcliffe (left) was locked in an acrimonious court battle with his estranged wife, fashion consultant Tracey Ratcliffe (right)

Nicholas and Tracey Ratcliffe's £1.3m former marital home (right side of image) forms part of a large Victorian mansion in affluent Bowdon, Greater Manchester

Nicholas and Tracey Ratcliffe’s £1.3m former marital home (right side of image) forms part of a large Victorian mansion in affluent Bowdon, Greater Manchester 

Court of Appeal judges said Judge Wallwork’s assessment of the size of the family fortune ‘overstated the true position’ at the time – and ordered that the case be heard and decided again.

‘Regrettably, given the long and troubled history of the proceedings, I have come to the conclusion that the judge’s decision was flawed,’ said Lord Justice Moylan.

The court heard Mrs Ratcliffe was living with her parents and studying for a business degree at Liverpool University when she met her future husband in 1992.

Ten years her senior, he was a chartered surveyor who went on to earn most of his money as a consultant finding potential sites for Sainsbury’s supermarkets.

Although well-educated, Mrs Ratcliffe, now 51, did not pursue a career after having the first of their two sons and instead worked as part of Mr Ratcliffe’s consultancy business, which was essentially a ‘joint enterprise.’

They had two children before separating in March 2016, but continued to live under the same roof, with Mr Ratcliffe, 61, then embarking on a ‘creepy’ bid to force her out, the wife’s barrister Anne Hussey QC said. 

At the Family Court last year, Judge Bernard Wallwork ordered the couple split their assets down the middle, with each receiving about £3.4m

At the Family Court last year, Judge Bernard Wallwork ordered the couple split their assets down the middle, with each receiving about £3.4m

Previously at the Family Court last year, Judge Bernard Wallwork ordered the couple split their assets down the middle, with each receiving about £3.4m, but this has now been overturned

Two judges – first Deputy District Judge Dunn and then Judge Wallwork – have since made highly critical findings about Mr Ratcliffe’s conduct, she said.

‘Despite being aware of her ‘fragile mental health’, the husband showed a ‘deplorable level of control’ and embarked on a campaign ‘designed to drive the wife from the family home’,’ said Mrs Hussey.

‘The husband’s behaviour – found to include installing and using CCTV to monitor the wife in the former matrimonial home and locking internal doors – was described in the first judgment as ‘creepy’.’

In June 2018, Mr Ratcliffe was finally ordered to leave the family home by Judge Dunn and has since lived in rented accommodation.

He has not worked since 2007, but is in the middle of carrying out a multi-million pound ‘luxury’ 30-house development on prime rural land he partly owns in Lower Peover, near Knutsford.

At the Family Court last year, Judge Wallwork ordered that the couple split their assets down the middle, with each receiving about £3.45m of the £6.9m wealth he found they would have when the profits are counted from the development.

As well as getting the £1.3m home and valuable shares, a judge ordered that Mrs Ratcliffe be paid £1.2m in cash instalments

As well as getting the £1.3m home and valuable shares, a judge ordered that Mrs Ratcliffe be paid £1.2m in cash instalments

Ruling on the case, he said: ‘This case ranks among the most acrimonious financial remedy cases I have ever dealt with. The bitterness and rancour has been considerable and has permeated the proceedings.’

He slammed Mr Ratcliffe’s attitude towards his wife, particularly given he knew she had been suffering with mental health problems.

‘I think his behaviour has been designed to drive the wife from the family home – and I am stressing the words ‘her home’,’ he said.

‘Closed-circuit television was installed within the house to monitor the wife’s movements.

‘Locks were placed on internal doors and the husband did not demur when I expressed concern that Post-it notes were left on occasions in the kitchen bearing such messages as, ‘clean me’, ‘unhygienic’ and so on.

‘It appears to me that knowing of the wife’s fragile mental health these actions were oppressive.’

As well as getting the £1.3m home and valuable shares, he ordered that Mrs Ratcliffe be paid £1.2m in cash instalments.

She would be left with as much liquid cash as possible due to the ‘deviousness’ of Mr Ratcliffe during the divorce proceedings, said the judge.

Appealing, Mr Ratcliffe argued that his own age, future earning capacity and housing needs had not been properly taken into account by the divorce judge.

And although Lord Justice Moylan said there was ‘no possible basis’ to challenge the £3.45m payout on those grounds, he said a flawed approach to the decision meant it could not stand.

Various figures had been put forward for the value of the family’s fortune, largely due to the uncertainty surrounding what profit the housing development will net.

In coming to the £6.9m figure for the amount to be split, the judge had ‘double counted’ some elements, resulting in a sum that ‘significantly overstated the true position.’

Allowing the appeal, Lord Justice Moylan, sitting with Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Phillips, declined to make a new ruling themselves and instead sent it back to Judge Wallwork.

‘In some respects, both parties have some responsibility for this, because the figures they each put forward had similar flaws in the approach they both adopted,’ said the appeal judge.

‘In the circumstances, and in accordance with the overriding objective, I consider that the right course is for the case to be remitted to the judge for him to redetermine his award.

‘This will save a considerable amount of time and expense. Although the scope of the rehearing will be a matter for the judge, he will clearly not have to revisit many of the issues he addressed in his judgment.

‘He will however – and in saying this I appreciate the likely costs impact – have to revisit the value he ascribed to the development.

‘It is now two years since the judge heard this case. The development was then at an early stage and, as the judge noted, a project of this type has significant intrinsic uncertainties.

‘It would not be right that the court should now determine what award is fair on the basis of evidence as to the development which is historic.

‘This does not, of course, mean that, however unlikely it might appear, it is not open to the parties to resolve these proceedings by agreement.’