News

Hazel Wright discusses the Supreme Court judgment of Mills v Mills in Family Law Week, New Law Journal and Spear’s

  • July 18, 2018
  • By Hazel Wright, Partner

In Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court has allowed a husband’s appeal against an order, secured in the Court of Appeal, which increased the level of his periodical payments so as to cover her shortfall between existing periodical payments and her current needs.

Hazel Wright, partner in the family department at Lincoln’s Inn firm Hunters Solicitors, commented:

“All maintenance cases ultimately have to answer one basic question: “how long and how much?” Today’s Supreme Court ruling regarding the divorce maintenance settlement of Mr and Mrs Mills cuts to the heart of this question.

“Mr and Mrs Mills lived well during their 13 year marriage, largely due to his financial contribution as chairman of the surveying company Technics Group. On divorce, they negotiated a settlement by which she took most of the liquid capital, to provide her with housing and a lump sum. Once these has been provided, the only remaining link between them was the sharing of his income with her. There was no limit on how long this should last and nothing to stop either of them asking for a variation of that provision.

“Mrs Mills clearly wanted to go on living well after the divorce by relying on that income. Like many people, she decided to increase her own capital by buying and selling homes, trading up each time and eventually could not afford her mortgage. She has spent the rest of the capital from the divorce, so she found herself renting a home.

“Conversely, Mr Mills wanted simply to move on from the marriage and the divorce. He asked the court to break the income link. So he applied to court on the basis that Mrs Mills had been irresponsible over money and should be able to meet her own housing needs. He also wanted to buy out her remaining income dependence on him.

“Today, the Supreme Court agreed that it is time for Mrs Mills to be independent and to meet her increased housing costs herself.

“The court has ruled that it would be unfair to Mr Mills to be saddled with an obligation to keep up the maintenance payments to Mrs Mills at the level she wanted, £1,441 per month rather than the £1,100 per month he was paying. She had already had a clean break which provided for her housing. To give more of his income, Mr Mills would effectively be paying for her housing again.”

Read each article in Family Law WeekNew Law Journal and Spear’s.

Related News

Apr 09, 2019
Henry Hood comments on the no-fault divorce reform in The Guardian
Apr 05, 2019
Jo Carr-West comments on a £1.3m divorce award despite signing a pre-nuptial agreement in Family Law Week
Apr 04, 2019
Richard Kershaw examines the case of Daga v Bangur and trusts in the Family Division in WealthBriefing
Apr 04, 2019
Rebecca Christie comments on the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths Act 2019 that came into force in The Times
Mar 07, 2019
Richard Kershaw comments on the case of Cowan v Foreman in New Law Journal
Mar 04, 2019
Richard Kershaw examines the case of Daga v Bangur and trusts in the Family Division in Family Law LexisNexis
Feb 06, 2019
Hazel Wright reaccredited by the Family Mediation Council as a specialist family mediator
Dec 17, 2018
Henry Hood comments on the sale of the £4.5 million helicopter in the Akhmedova divorce case in Family Law Week
Nov 23, 2018
Jay Patel comments on a racing driver’s ex-wife’s possible entitlement to a £5 million divorce settlement in Family Law
Nov 09, 2018
Henry Hood comments on Sharia court ignoring an order from the High Court that an oligarch must hand over a £350m yacht to his ex-wife in The Law Society Gazette and Family Law Week

© Hunters Law LLP 2019 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)