The Wife received £2,932,739 of capital in the final order. From this, £1,200,000 was deducted to ‘cover the costs of a car, currency fluctuations and other expenses’ and, whilst not expressly stated in the first instance judgment, Francis J ‘inferred’ that ‘the Judge meant to include in the list of items totalling £1.2 million the £1.128 million allocated to her for the purposes of purchasing a property’. The Wife was therefore left, after her capital needs were met, with the sum of £1,732,739.
The issue of the appeal was therefore is the maintenance quantum correct, in so far as: 1) should the Wife be able to share in the Husband’s income as a matrimonial asset going forward; 2) Were her reasonable needs accurately assessed at first instance; and, 3) what accounting should be made for the income potential of her capital award?
The first of these is easily answered. Despite the Wife’s attempts to argue that Waggott v Waggott  2 FLR 406 ‘was a very different case’ (para 33), Moylan LJ ‘was purposefully setting out general guidance rather than dealing with facts very specific to that case.’ The nature of that general guidance is ‘that it is now settled law that income cannot be shared’ (para 22) and ‘an award of periodical payments (absent rare compensation cases) must be based on properly analysed arithmetic reflecting need’. The first instance judge therefore mistakenly identified the Husband’s income as matrimonial property that needed to be shared.
The Wife’s budget was not subject to any detailed analysis in the judgment. This despite her being cross-examined ‘extensively’ (para 44) and ‘the [first instance] Judge intervened even to the extent of asking about the price of a litre of milk, the sprinkler systems in the wife’s garden and the cost of toll roads, which make the lack of analysis in the Judgment all the more surprising’. Without said detailed analysis, the first instance Judge found £150,000 per annum to be ‘appropriate’ and whilst a judge ‘is entitled to be generous in their assessment’ (para 36) ‘a judge is not entitled simply to take a round number without reference to any arithmetic… otherwise, discretion gives way to a risk of disorder or even chaos with people not knowing how or whether to settle’. Francis J reduced this figure to £120,000 per annum (para 45) as her Form E needs were stated as ‘not less than £10,000 per month’ and Francis J was ‘entitled to assume, and do so, that the wife’s asserted figure in her Form E was carefully thought through’.
The Wife was attributed with an income of £52,000 per annum derived from her capital (para 42) following a partial amortisation: (para 41) ‘it is fair not to amortise the wife’s capital for the remaining years of the husband’s employment’ with, interestingly, Francis J stating that Waggot should not be interpreted as always requiring a spouse to amortise all of their capital for all of the time and that there should be some ‘fact specific… flexibility’ about the amount and time required.
Having attributed the Wife with £52,000 per annum from her capital (it would have been around £100,000 net per annum if he had ‘amortised all of the wife’s capital from day one) (para 40)) and assessed her reasonable needs at £120,000, the correct maintenance quantum was determined at £68,000 per annum, some £82,000 less than at first instance and an overpayment by the Husband of over £115,166 in the seventeen months between the commencement date of maintenance and the appeal judgment.