Business

How London divorce judges are curbing ‘meal ticket for life’


London’s courts have a reputation for awarding generous divorce settlements but judges are moving to limit one type of financial award dubbed a “meal ticket for life” by critics.

In two key cases, judges have signalled they are opting to place time limits on life-long post-divorce maintenance payments and now expect the financially weaker spouse to eventually go out to work.

“There is now a presumption that someone can go to work and that the court will hold the view that people have some sort of earning capacity unless they are a few years off retirement,” said Simon Blain, partner at Penningtons Manches.

The UK capital is still likely to attract big money divorce cases because English law says that wealth should be split equally between a divorcing couple, even if one spouse is the main breadwinner.

English courts’ unusual approach

In cases where there is not enough money for a one-off divorce settlement payment, courts have the option to award ongoing maintenance payments as well as lump sum awards. Judges have often awarded so-called joint lives maintenance to the financially weaker spouse, which means they receive annual payments for the rest of their life.

English courts are unusual in awarding open-ended maintenance orders. In Scotland, which has a separate legal system, maintenance is only usually payable for three years following a divorce, after which it is assumed the spouse will get a job and become self supporting. In France the maintenance period lasts eight years and in Norway and Greece it is usually three years.

Lawyers say a recent decision by the UK’s Supreme Court not to hear an appeal from former accountant Kim Waggott, whose maintenance will stop in 2021, underscores how judges appear to be taking a tougher line on open ended maintenance.

Ms Waggott, who was awarded £10m plus £175,000 a year maintenance when she divorced in 2012, had appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that her maintenance should cease in 2021. The UK’s highest court refused permission for her appeal on the grounds it did not raise an arguable point of law.

Graham Mills outside the Supreme Court after winning the dispute over maintenance payments to his ex-wife in July © John Stillwell/PA

The Supreme Court in June also signalled it was against increasing joint lives payments to former spouses when it ruled in favour of Graham Mills, who argued that he should not have to increase life-long monthly maintenance payments to his former wife Maria after she made unwise property investment decisions with her 2002 divorce settlement.

Pressure grows for legislative reform

The shift comes amid moves to reform the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 — which deals with financial provision in divorce settlements — to create greater legal certainty and reduce reliance on judicial discretion to make maintenance orders.

Baroness Deech, a cross-bencher in the House of Lords, is seeking urgent reform of the law and wants a financial cap to be placed on most open-ended maintenance payments. “The proposal to put a limit on maintenance reflects what is happening in Scotland and other jurisdictions,” she said.

Her Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill had its third reading in the House of Lords in December and has now passed to the Commons. It includes a provision that would limit maintenance payments to five years except in exceptional circumstances.

However, the government expressed reservations about the bill at its second reading last May. The Ministry of Justice said in a statement: “We are considering the evidence for reform of financial provision, making sure any proposals would not undermine protection for vulnerable spouses.”

Lawyers are already advising clients that courts are becoming reluctant to grant joint lives maintenance, according to Mr Blain. He said that solicitors representing the main breadwinner — usually a husband — might even go to a recruitment consultant with the wife’s CV and ask what sorts of jobs she could do. But he acknowledged that “it’s difficult for someone though if their skills are 20 years out of date and they are a certain age”.

Ros Bever, national head of family law at Irwin Mitchell, agreed there is a trend towards time-limited orders as opposed to joint lives maintenance. “Ten or 15 years ago I’d have said to a wife file in the Principal Registry [London’s family court] and you have a chance of securing a lifetime order,” she said. “I think there is a trend towards term orders and the pendulum has swung . . . but I think joint lives should remain as safety measure,” she added.

The case for judicial discretion

Some family lawyers have argued that there should not be a time limit imposed on maintenance payments and say decisions should be left to judges who can assess each case on its facts. Some spouses may not be able to work at all if they are caring for a severely disabled child, for example.

Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, said in an April speech to Resolution, an association representing family lawyers, that she sees the goal of divorce settlements as being “to give each party an equal start on the road to independent living.”

Lady Hale has expressed support for lifetime payments in some situations © Jane Barlow/PA

However, she said that settlements cannot ignore the fact that someone who has given up work to concentrate on family responsibilities will never make up what they have lost and an equal start “is bound to involve, for most couples, an element of compensation for the disadvantage, often the permanent disadvantage, resulting from the choices made by both parties during the marriage”.

“Sometimes, but not always, the only way to do this is by open-ended periodical payments.” she added.



READ SOURCE

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.