Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce
and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email email@example.com
Mills v Mills: the consequences of ill-advised financial decisions
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
The Supreme Court judgment on Mills v Mills
 UKSC 38 was handed down by Lord Wilson on Wednesday [18 July] with the overall impression being that it was the right result, reference having been made to wife’s cross-application to vary upwards her joint lives spousal periodical payments as a 'second bite of the cherry'.
Mr and Mrs Mills (referred to as husband and wife) are now aged 52-years-old. They married in 1987, divorced in 2002 and have an adult son. Wife was a qualified beauty therapist and husband a qualified surveyor. In 2002 at the FDR, they reached a financial agreement that was reflected in a consent order which essentially provided for the following:
- The FMH was to be sold and wife was to receive the majority of the net proceeds and sale (being the majority of the parties capital) of £230,000;
- Wife to transfer her interest in policies to husband worth £23,000;
- Wife to transfer her shares in the husband’s surveying companies to husband; and
- Husband to pay the wife spousal maintenance (not index linked) for joint lives, ie until her remarriage or further order of the court.
Read the full article here.