Mills v Mills: the consequences of ill-advised financial decisions

The Supreme Court judgment on Mills v Mills [2018] 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:

1. 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;
2. Wife to transfer her interest in policies to husband worth £23,000;
3. Wife to transfer her shares in the husband’s surveying companies to husband; and
4. Husband to pay the wife spousal maintenance (not index linked) for joint lives, ie until her remarriage or further order of the court.