Christen Chambers battles it out winning the highest profile divorce case in Seychelles’ history. The case may be argued as also being the highest value case ever fought in the country. Its client is a high net worth individual in Seychelles whose sheer hard work transformed him into one of the most successful self-made businessman in the country. Ms Christen was selected to be the sole litigator in his Appeal case after being part of the client’s winning team in the trial. This high profile litigation set the stage for Ms Christen to showcase her legal principles, tactical experience, persuasiveness and fearless tenacity in the court room.

In the case the ex-spouse explained that she was a dutiful wife and caring mother providing the client with the free time to build a business empire. Thereby claiming that she should be awarded half of the assets for the role she played. Particularly because (in her view) her father “gave” the client the first business that would start the empire. This backdrop was painted with the idea in mind that Seychellois law would naturally award the spouse half the assets accumulated whilst married if the marriage was a long standing one where the wife tended to the house and children whilst the husband was the breadwinner. A 40+ year marriage with all those elements meant the ex-spouse had a very strong case if Seychelles law was to apply. 

The record shows that the client, prior to ever meeting his ex-spouse, was hired as the company’s manager. An interview process was conducted and after impressing the shareholders he was hired. The waters in the case became muddier as the ex-spouse  explained that one of the shareholders was her father. She attempted to explain that because of her, her father gave the client a job. However, what is lost in translation is that the client had not met his ex-spouse at that time and only met her at a much later date. This much later date is in fact after having been hired on his own merits. Therefore, there was no reason for her father to hire the client as a favour to her and the ex-spouses argument was mute under these facts. 

The record goes on to show that at some point after the June 1977 Seychelles coup the company was threatened with compulsory acquisition. By this time the client had met and married the daughter of one of the shareholders. The group of shareholders, now wanting to escape the unstable business environment, wanted to sell the company to a Seychellois for a better bid before it was acquired by the government. Under such threat no one in the market was bold enough to be a purchaser. The client bought the company, not with any help from his now father-in-law, but completely on his own, by borrowing on extraneous commercial terms from bank lenders. This was not a case where the client was gifted the company by his father in law, rather, he was left with what others understand as the proverbial ‘short straw’. The client took an immense risk which paid off over a long period of time. With his skillful business acumen he raised the company to what it is today through all the difficulty and strife. 

Ms Christen, as the attorney of the defendant, was determined to bring out her clients life as it happened, she battled every attempt to create half-truths, selective memory and imprecise law that were spun by the ex-spouses lawyers. Unfortunately for the opposing lawyer’s, the half-truths were inconsistent with the facts and Ms Christen was capable of straightening out all the pertinent details. Ms Christen was thorough; she carefully planned her time to learn where every fact was in the brief. Each time she was able to point to the page which told the picture differently to that of the ex-spouse’s lawyers. Ms Christens’ total determination and dedication to this case meant that there was no room to twist the facts. Her level of dedication could not be matched  by the other side. Chambers & Partners Global quotes one of Ms Christens’ clients as saying “she proved to be very skilful in court, with her arguments clear, thoughtful, precise, delivered with ease and confidence.”

After meticulously pulling apart the un-factual “start to life” argument, Ms Christen was still left with an immense challenge: that Seychelles law generally gave the spouse, in a situation like this, half of the assets. This is a social policy enshrined in the Matrimonial Causes Act. However there were important details that Ms Christen would call upon to demonstrate the overall context of the marriage. The marriage contained vital information from its inception. The ex-spouses father recommended at the civil status office, during the official legal marriage, in Mauritius, that the parties should choose to be governed by a matrimonial regime called ‘separation of property’. In essence, the aim of this proposition was to ensure that the wealth of his daughter would be protected from a situation where the husband-to-be would divorce his daughter and claim half her assets. This is to explain that the ex-spouse already had or would have assets to protect and that were much greater than that of the clients. The client having no wealth of his own at the time, happily agreed to the recommendation as he wanted to marry the woman he loved.  As did his ex-spouse agree to this proposal that placed her well. Even in the midst of such a high stakes litigation and under intense pressure the irony of this situation is unshakeable – the separation of property regime would stop the client from claiming any of his ex-spouse’s assets but, as a consequence unseen by the ex-spouse and her father, this would also stop the ex-spouse from claiming any of the client’s assets should their financial positions be reversed. As fate would have it, the financial positions were reversed and the father-in-law would materially save the client from the precise circumstance he envisioned to save his daughter from facing.

The choice of a separation of property regime was just the twist that was needed to potentially win the case. The client had reacted quickly, finding himself the best family lawyer in Mauritius to be the expert witness and she explained what being married under this ‘separation of property’ regime meant. Narghis Bundhun SC’s expert testimony  was key to delivering the fatal blow to the opposition. Ms Christen led her expert witness skilfully, building a solid foundation exposing that, under this regime and through the ex-spouses own choice, no amount of wifely duties and motherly doting counts to give the spouse a share of the assets under this particular Mauritian matrimonial regime. That only a direct financial contribution could factor in to mitigate the ‘separation of property’ and the ex-spouse was found to admit that she never did contribute financially. 

Now that Mauritian law entered the mix, the ex-spouse’s lawyers wasted no time in brandishing the conflict of laws topic. They were seasoned experts in the field. Having done high profile litigations in that area of law themselves. For Ms Christen this was a new topic. She self taught herself conflict of law rules from the foundation up and knew she had to understand this area of law better than the opposition. Seychelles’ conflict of laws comprises a series of landmine areas where one must first go back to French law to determine whether one would apply the conflict of law rules that existed in England or those that existed in France. Then use that English or French rule to determine whether it is Seychellois law or Mauritian law which would apply to this case. It required learning the English conflict of laws rules as well as the French conflict of laws rules to discover the nuances under each system. The ex-spouses’ lawyers employed a series of tactics to muddy the waters regarding which rules were to apply in this circumstance – the complexity could easily become dizzying. Their venture was designed to cause the judges to incorrectly focus back on Seychellois law knowing that this conclusion would give the ex-spouse half of the assets and win them the case. 

Ms Christen dedicated herself and became an expert in conflict of laws in a matter of months arguing that a matrimonial regime is a creature of contract. That our laws of contract are based on French law and therefore according to the French conflict of laws test,  one must apply the applicable law that the spouses intended. Ms Christen, through plain thoroughness, uncovered the old law texts which also set out that if the parties reduce their intention to writing, the court will uphold this intention as binding. The Seychellois courts, following this articulous evidential reasoning by Ms Christen, upheld the choice that was set out in the marriage certificate. The marriage certificate being an authentic document signed by both spouses at the time they made their own mutual choice. This persuasive one page document would make all the difference in this case. Ms Christen tactically chose all the right moments to remind the court that the law requires one to uphold freedom of choice. It is a fundamental contractual principle that if the parties to a contract freely and intentionally choose its terms the court will give it the force of law. In this case, if there was no choice, under Mauritian law, the default position is that all assets are shared. So in practice if the client and his ex-spouse expressed no specific choice then they would end up in the Mauritius default position of a shared assets regime. In other words, to reach separation of property the client and his ex-spouse had to take the much more deliberate route to expressly opt out of this default position and actively take steps to change into a regime of separation of property. This was a stunning display of a very simple principle – when two adults can agree, having made an intentional choice and having the required freedom to choose, then there choice is their destiny. The message here is that anyone in Seychelles has the right to choose their own destiny without interference from the court. The courts, acting through an Appeal panel of three female judges, unfazed by the muddied waters created by the opposing lawyers, were true to the law. They unanimously upheld the intention and choice made by the spouses when they originally agreed during the incorporation of their marriage. 

Ms Christen through her clear and precise arguments overcame the last and potentially fatal hurdle – conflict of laws. The client, against very challenging odds, was able to keep all of his assets. Being the gentleman that the client really is, he continues to maintain his ex-spouse as he did prior to the trial. The client on winning his appeal describes his lawyer Ms Christen as “a young lawyer full of talent, very professional, serious, and punctual, and her cases are really studied seriously. Thank you for your dedication”. Ms Christen’s client was able to keep the entire empire he built truly from the bottom up.  As importantly, the courts in Seychelles demonstrated that freedom of choice is a principle that is upheld even in the most challenging and high-stakes of circumstances.

Link to court ruling: https://seylii.org/akn/sc/judgment/scca/2023/29/eng@2023-08-25