An ex-wife cannot expect her ex-husband to provide for her housing costs twice if she loses her first lump sum payment through mismanagement, the Supreme Court has held.
Mr and Mrs Mills settled their finances by a consent order in 2002, giving Mrs Mills a capital sum for housing costs and requiring Mr Mills to pay her monthly instalments of £1,100 for their joint lives.
In 2014 Mr Mills applied to vary the order on the basis his ex-wife had lost the capital through gross financial mismanagement and was now in a position to work more to bring home more earnings. Mrs Mills made a cross-application for a rise in her monthly payments since she could not meet her basic needs. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mrs Mills, increasing the maintenance to £1,441 per month.
The case went to the Supreme Court on the issue of whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to take the capital sum into account when increasing the monthly payments since Mr Mills had already made provision for Mrs Mills’ housing costs back in 2002. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favour of Mr Mills, in Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38.
Hazel Wright, partner at Hunters Solicitors, said: ‘All maintenance cases ultimately have to answer one basic question: “how long and how much?”
‘The Supreme Court agreed that it is time for Mrs Mills to be independent and to meet her increased housing costs herself. 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.’
Charles Hale QC, barrister at 4PB, said: ‘The Supreme Court has today confirmed that an ex-husband will not be liable for the losses of the returning Prodigal wife! Ultimately though, only a change in the legislation can bring about real change in spousal maintenance claims.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
