Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
AlphaBiolabs: Bridging the gap – when a hair drug test is not enough
***SPONSORED CONTENT***Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters.Drug testing plays a crucial role...
Film by Refuge, ‘Make the World a Refuge’ wins Film of the Year
‘Make the world a Refuge’, a powerful short film exploring the diverse forms of domestic abuse, has been awarded Charity Film of the Year 2025 at the Smiley Charity Film...
No longer ‘contact at all costs’: a new approach from Cafcass? Implications for private law cases
Tom Doyle, Park Square BarristersMost family lawyers will undoubtedly now be aware of the new domestic abuse practice policy published by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service...
‘Do they have to know about that?’ Human rights considerations and disclosure
Simon Johnson, Pump Court ChambersThis article examines the difficult and often emotive issue of disclosure of highly personal information about one party to other parties within public law...
Good practice: creating an accessible system for people with physical limitations: Part 1
Reagan Persaud, Spire BarristersFamily law is an arena for everyone. Every kind of person has the potential to frequent these courts hoping for justice. It is therefore common place for users who have...
View all articles
Authors

Varying maintenance? What’s the right answer?

Sep 29, 2018, 23:30 PM
Family Law, divorce, maintenance, Mills v Mills, variation, Supreme Court
Title : Varying maintenance? What’s the right answer?
Slug : varying-maintenance-what-s-the-right-answer
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Jun 22, 2018, 04:30 AM
Article ID : 117231
As the summer sunshine continues, so too does the flow of Supreme Court appeals dealing with fundamental family law questions. In the last few weeks, they have looked at extending civil partnerships to straight couples and the modern approach to 'unreasonable behaviour' within divorce petitions. The latest issue considered by the UK’s highest court has been maintenance, specifically, the correct approach to varying a maintenance order years after the divorce and financial settlement have been finalised.

In Mills v Mills, husband and wife divorced in 2002. Under the financial settlement, the wife was to receive a capital sum and £1,100 per month for joint lives (until either the husband or wife dies). In 2014, the husband applied to discharge (bring to an end) the maintenance order or, at least, reduce the monthly amount payable. At the same time, the wife applied for an increase in maintenance as she said she could not meet her basic needs.
The husband argued that the wife had lost her capital due to ‘gross financial mismanagement’ and could work more to increase her income. The family court ordered that the original maintenance order should stand, unchanged. However, the Court of Appeal allowed the wife’s appeal and increased her monthly maintenance to £1,441. The Supreme Court has now heard the husband’s appeal and will consider whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to factor in the wife’s housing costs when these had already been provided for in the 2002 capital settlement.

The Supreme Court generally takes around 12 working weeks to publish judgments after a hearing, which means that in this case, we are unlikely to get a decision until the autumn. When the judgment lands, as well as an individual decision for Mr and Mrs Mills, I think we can expect some fairly deep analysis of the purpose and ethics of long-term maintenance.

Under the law in England and Wales, spouses and civil partners can be awarded maintenance to meet their own income needs at any level, for any length of time, with or without a hard cut off date. This is not the case in many other jurisdictions, for example in Scotland where the maintenance regime is much more restrictive. In this country, in many cases, there will be no ongoing payments other than maintenance for dependent children. However, payments of “spousal maintenance” are by no means uncommon.
This is a very thorny topic. Should the obligation to maintain one another survive the end of a relationship? You might immediately think, no, beyond a short adjustment period. However, is it fair for a person who has been out of the labour market, sometimes for decades, in order to take on a homemaking and/or caring role with all the benefits this brings to the wider family be expected, especially in later life, to have to generate sufficient income from employment in the absence of a capital sum and/or pension provision?

When we are looking at a variation or review of monthly provision, we might find that a maintenance order may have been entirely appropriate at the time the marriage broke up but many years down the time, the landscape will have changed completely. New jobs, new partners, new homes, changed financial circumstances and economic conditions.

The Supreme Court cannot change the legislation on maintenance. Furthermore, the decision itself can only directly address the question on appeal in the Mills case, which is whether the Court of Appeal have taken the wife’s housing costs into consideration when this was factored into the original capital settlement. However, the comments and wider analysis within the judgment – whether they be ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ the long-term continuation of maintenance orders – are likely to set the tone amongst the lower courts and the legal profession for some time to come.

This article was originally published by JMW Solicitors
Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
money
Provider : JMW Solicitors
Product Bucket :