Dale Vince ‘donated money to Labour amid money battle with ex-wife’, court told

Green industrialist Dale Vince donated millions to the Labour Party to reduce the amount he would have to pay his ex-wife in a divorce battle, the High Court has been told.

Mr Vince and his ex-wife, Kate Vince, are in dispute over how money should be split following their divorce, which a judge granted on Tuesday.

Lawyers for Ms Vince, 50, claim that her ex-husband, 63, “has been giving away” their “matrimonial assets”, of which she should be entitled to half, in a “wanton and reckless” fashion.

But barristers for Mr Vince told the court in London that the increase in donations came from a rise in the value of his businesses, and had “nothing at all to do with” the legal battle.

In written submissions for a hearing which began on Tuesday, Richard Todd KC, for Ms Vince, said: “It beggars belief that the husband can gift away £14,194,840 of matrimonial assets and say that he should only ever be accountable for such a distribution in the extreme case of a wanton and reckless disposition, albeit this is wanton and reckless.

“The wife’s application was caused entirely by the husband’s refusal to agree to be the custodian of both their money and hold it for them both. She has no difficulty with him spending his half of the money; his demand is that he should be able to spend her half too.

“The post-separation multimillion-pound donations to the Labour Party and to his charitable foundation and the other charities should come from his share, it being his unilateral act.”

The court heard that the pair began a relationship in around the late 1990s after Ms Vince began working for Mr Vince’s company, Ecotricity.

Mr Vince claims they separated in 2021, but Ms Vince alleges they were “continuing a physical and emotional relationship right up to February 2022”, the court was told.

Mr Todd said that Mr Vince was “penniless” at the start of the relationship and that the increase in value of the business “took place within the matrimonial partnership”, meaning that awarding Ms Vince 50% of the pair’s assets “is the fairest outcome”.

But the barrister said that between April 2022 and May 2024, Mr Vince “has given £5,460,000 of matrimonial money to the Labour Party”, as well as sums to other organisations.

This included £100,000 to the Cheltenham Muslim Association and £8,464,840 to his foundation, the Green Britain Foundation, which includes support for Forest Green Rovers FC, the National League football side he owns, despite Ms Vince “asking him not to or asking him to confirm that he accepts that these will come out of his own share of the assets”.

Lewis Marks KC, for Mr Vince, said in his written submissions that the donations were funded by an “influx of money” stemming from business deals, which “provided the financial wherewithal to make larger donations than previously”.

He added that “an equal division of the overall wealth would be a serious injustice” to Mr Vince, as he made “unmatched endeavour” to the company before and after the relationship.

He said: “The impugned donations were made during a period when the value of the business increased hugely, post-separation.”

He continued: “The husband’s wish to see a Labour government elected had nothing at all to do with wanting to diminish the wife’s claims, neither does he accept that it will have done so.”

He added: “The wife’s misconception that the funds were ‘theirs’ or ‘hers’, or for that matter ‘his’, is not one which the court should indulge – they were company funds.”

In court, Mr Marks said that Mr Vince “has sought to make this a civilised disengagement”, adding it was a “tragedy that they are here”.

Earlier on Tuesday, Mr Justice Cusworth granted the pair a final divorce, after Ms Vince’s lawyers asked for the decision to be pushed back until after a ruling on the money fight.

Mr Todd said in his written submissions that the decision on whether to grant the divorce “is not urgent” and could cause the “potential loss of a share in an honour” given to Mr Vince by the government in the New Year Honours list due to his donations.

But Mr Marks said the issuing of a divorce should not be held up because Ms Vince “wants the possibility of some tag-along title”, which Mr Vince did not believe he would receive.

Mr Justice Cusworth ruled that it would not be “necessary, proportionate and reasonable” to delay issuing a divorce “because there is a possibility that one or the other of the parties at one time in the future might receive some form of honour”.

The hearing is due to conclude later this month.