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

Feb 26, 2021
Richard Kershaw considers the implications of Mr Justice Cohen’s judgment in FRB v DRC (No 3) in Family Law Week
Feb 25, 2021
Richard Kershaw examines the impact of market volatility on divorce settlements in Finance Monthly
Feb 24, 2021
Polly Atkins examines whether one can charge an ex-spouse rent whilst waiting for their home to sell
Feb 19, 2021
Richard Kershaw examines whether you can re-open a divorce settlement due to Covid-19 in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary
Feb 02, 2021
Amy Scollan discusses divorce and luxury assets
Feb 01, 2021
Richard Kershaw discusses recent case where an unmarried couple have been ordered to share investment assets
Jan 18, 2021
Family Mediation Week 2021
Nov 19, 2020
Jay Patel and Polly Atkins examine family law in the lead up to Brexit in Family Law Week
Nov 09, 2020
Richard Kershaw discusses trusts on divorce and their role in financial planning strategies
Nov 05, 2020
Hunters recognised in The Times Best Law Firms 2021

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

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