Today the Supreme Court has handed down a Judgment allowing an appeal by a former husband against a decision of the Court of Appeal to increase his former wife’s maintenance because she had mismanaged her finances and now had a greater need.
The parties divorced in 2002 and their claims were settled by way of a Consent Order which provided for the wife, amongst other things, £230,000 by way of capital and spousal maintenance for joint lives at £1,100 per calendar month.
It was anticipated that the wife would use £230,000 to purchase a suitable mortgage free home for herself but unfortunately she did not and the first house she purchased (with a mortgage) was for £345,000. Between 2002 and 2009, the wife bought and sold various properties, often releasing capital for herself so that by 2009 the wife had sold her last property.
By April 2015 the wife had no capital remaining and debts of £42,000.
The husband had applied to discharge, or alternatively reduce, the maintenance payments. The wife cross appealed to say that, because now she was having to rent a property to live in, there was a significant shortfall between her income, the maintenance which she had been receiving from the husband and what her actual needs were. The Court of Appeal agreed with the wife and increased the husband’s monthly maintenance from £1,100 per calendar month to £1,441 per calendar month.
The Supreme Court has today decided that, whilst it is in the discretion of a Court to order one spouse to make provision for the other spouse, in this instance to order the husband to effectively pay an increase in the wife’s rent because she had financially mismanaged her own capital, was a duplication of the initial financial provision made for the wife and therefore the husband’s maintenance would remain at £1,100 per calendar month and the wife would have to adjust her expenditure accordingly.
For further information please contact Lindsey Canning at [email protected]
