The recent Supreme Court ruling Mills v Mills found in favour of the husband, Mr Mills.
Following a 15-year marriage, Mr and Mrs Mills divorced in 2002. The agreed financial settlement gave Mrs Mills a £230,000 capital sum and monthly payments of £1,100 to be made by Mr Mills for the duration of Mrs Mills’ life.
In 2014, Mr Mills applied to Court to stop the monthly payments as he had since re-married and had another child. Mr Mills’ application was denied. Mrs Mills then went a step further and fought for the monthly payments to be increased.
Since the agreed financial settlement, Mrs Mills had accrued £42,000 worth of debt and she asserted that the annual periodical payments were no longer sufficient to meet her needs (the shortfall equated to £4,092 per year).
Although, originally, the Court of Appeal did increase Mrs Mills payments to £1,441 per month, the Supreme Court allowed Mr Mills to appeal and ruled in his favour. The Supreme Court believed it was unfair for the husband to pay more as a consequence of the wife’s poor financial decisions. The original payments of £1,100 per month were reinstated.
If you need advice in relation to separation, divorce or financial settlement and would like to discuss how we can help you, please contact Kathryn Moggs in BakerLaw’s Family department at email@example.com or call 01252 730758.
This article is not a definitive statement of the law. It is designed as a free update on the law at the time of publishing. It is not a substitute for legal advice on specific facts and circumstances. BakerLaw LLP and/or the writer accepts no liability or responsibility for reliance on this article and recommends that you seek independent legal advice on your specific circumstances prior to taking any steps.