Skip to main content

News story

July 29, 2018

Divorcing couples must be prudent in managing their settlement proceeds

The Supreme Court issues a further warning

In the case of Mills v Mills, the Supreme Court has further warned divorcing couples that they must be prudent with managing their settlement proceeds and exercise caution before making applications to hold their ex-spouse responsible for their self-inflicted financial difficulties.

The Supreme Court found that Mrs Mills had mismanaged her original share of the divorce proceeds and her subsequent property investments between 2002 and 2009, leaving her without property ownership and at the mercy of the private rental market. When the case returned to the court in 2015, Mrs Mills had amassed debts for c. £42,000. Her application sought to increase her joint lives maintenance order from £1,100 per month from her ex-husband to £1,441 monthly to assist her vulnerable financial position and high rental payments.

The Supreme Court did not go as far as to permit Mr Mills’ counter application in reducing or terminating his maintenance obligations. However, by refusing his ex-wife’s application to increase the joint lives maintenance order, they have reiterated the established case law pattern of the past few years, that the courts of England and Wales should seek to achieve a clean break if circumstances enable it. Although maintenance may be ordered, there is to be an implied term on the part of the maintenance recipient that they must prudently manage their financial assets and seek to maximise their earning capacity.

Accordingly, this judgment will stand as an important reminder to all couples engaged in financial remedy negotiations that the bar has been raised when seeking to increase post-settlement maintenance at court, specifically where that increased need has been generated by their own failure to use a lump sum order for housing needs and/or a failure to manage their monthly budget in line with their income stream.

Whilst the court has not removed the option of a joint lives maintenance order, those that are ordered will now be accompanied by a stark reminder that a future upwards variation must be wholly justified and generated by circumstances beyond the applicant’s reasonable control.

This case is an important step to ensure divorcing couples realise they must make strides towards financial independence rather than relying on their former spouse’s income retrospectively. As such, the “meal ticket for life” has, through Lord Wilson’s judgment, been placed on a diet.

If you have any questions over settlement proceeds, speak to family lawyer Pippa Marshall today.

Note: This is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Can you make a WhatsApp will?
    Key legal requirements and future outlook.


    Read more
  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Ian, April 2025
    “Martin and his team at Barker Gillette acted for us in our purchase and sale of property. The chain was lengthy and elements of the work became complex. Martin was tenacious and resolved to answer our queries as they arose. He handled all aspe

  • Henry, April 2025
    “We have purchased flats before with 2 different solicitors who were unable to help us this time. Martin came highly recommended and are we glad. He was very professional in every way: knowledgeable, approachable, he has a friendly manner, very

  • Megan Purcell-Jones, April 2025
    “Charlotte was extremely diligent and thorough. She talked us through the process of making our wills and listened to and understood our needs and the complexities involved. Extremely patient and very clear.”

  • Hena, April 2025
    “Great experience, Patrick was very clear and gave time to explain the legal processes. Friendly and professional communication made me feel comfortable asking questions, received great legal advice.”

  • Michael Constable, April 2025
    “I wanted to revise my will and appoint RIAA Barker Gillette as my Executor and Trustees. This was handled very efficiently and professionally. It helped that I had agreed a fixed fee in advance.” Review left for: Herman Cheung

Read more
Send this to a friend