Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

Appeal Court judge tells ex-wife to 'get a job' in maintenance payment dispute

Sep 29, 2018, 21:41 PM
family law, maintenance payment dispute, divorce, divorce capital, London
The ex-wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon has been told by a judge to 'get a job' saying she has 'no right to be supported for life' at her ex-husband's expense.
Slug : appeal-court-judge-tells-ex-wife-to-get-a-job-in-maintenance-payment-dispute
Meta Title : Appeal Court judge tells ex-wife to 'get a job' in maintenance payment dispute
Meta Keywords : family law, maintenance payment dispute, divorce, divorce capital, London
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 24, 2015, 09:42 AM
Article ID : 108577
The ex-wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon has been told by a judge to 'get a job' saying she has 'no right to be supported for life' at her ex-husband's expense. In a dramatic ruling this Court of Appeal decision is likely to have a significant impact for ex-wives of wealthy husbands. Lord Justice Pitchford said divorcees with children aged over seven should work for a living.

Lord Justice Pitchford rejected a challenge by Tracey Wright to a decision to slash her future maintenance, which she stated would cause 'a plummeting in the standard of living’ of the youngest child. Mrs Wright's ex-husband Ian Wright, a racehorse surgeon in Newmarket, had been ordered to pay £75,000 maintenance and school fees per year (£33,200 was spousal maintenance for Mrs Wright's personal upkeep), in 2008 after 11 years of marriage. Last year Mr Wright went to the High Court to seek a reduction in the payments to Mrs Wright, stating it was not fair that he was expected to support his ex-wife for life, even after his proposed retirement.

Mrs Wright chose not to work after the end of the marriage, and instead be a stay-at-home mum. As part of the divorce, Mrs Wright received a mortgage-free home worth £450,000 and horse stabling for her and the daughters’ horses. Lord Justice Pitchford stated that 'the world of work has innumerable possibilities these days …vast numbers of women with children just get on with it and Mrs Wright should have done the same'. The judge continued to state that 'Mrs Wright has made no effort whatsoever to seek work or to update her skills ... I am satisfied that she has worked on this basis ... that she would be supported for life.'

The judge upheld the decision of the High Court that Mrs Wright's personal maintenance payments must cease, with a gradual tailing off over a 5-year period leading up to Mr Wright's retirement. He continued to state that:

'The question is whether there is a real prospect of establishing that the judge gave inadequate reasons for her decision that the husband should provide no spousal maintenance in his retirement. In my view there is no such prospect.'
This is significant for two reasons. First, historically courts have frequently not heard cases in advance of a change of circumstances - such as retirement - preferring to wait until the time has come. By accepting Mr Wright's application some 6 years before his planned retirement, and accepting his argument that he should start to reduce the support in advance of that date, the Court of Appeal has given a clear signal that planning for an ‘income changing’ event can be prudent.

Secondly, while in most cases which are assessed on the 'needs' of the parties, the ex-spouses are expected to go out to work and pull their weight financially as soon as possible, this case shows that courts are starting to apply this logic to cases involving wealthy couples.

Taken with the recent judgment by Judge Mostyn in the High Court case of SS v NS [2014] EWHC 4183 (Fam) there is a real movement coming from the higher courts that a divorcing spouse cannot realistically expect to have her income needs met by her former husband, for many years after the divorce, particularly where she can reasonably be expected to go out to work, and that the courts will not treat an unwillingness to work as a good enough reason to expect payments to continue longer than is necessary for her needs to be met whilst she re-trains.
Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Load more comments
Comment by from