In categories: Divorce
The wife who was refused a divorce because the lower courts considered she had failed to establish that the behaviour she was alleging was sufficiently ‘unreasonable’ to qualify, has been given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court
In addition, permission has been given to the husband in Mills v Mills to appeal to the Supreme Court. In this case the parties financial claims were settled by a consent order providing the wife with a capital sum and periodical payments of £1,199 pm. After 12 years of making these payments, the husband applied to discharge or vary the periodical payments on the basis that the wife was in a position to work more. The wife sought an upward variation on the basis that, having lost much of the capital she had been awarded through bad investments, she now needed more to meet her basic needs. The judge held that the order should continue without variation, but the Court of Appeal allowed the wife’s appeal and increased the payments to the wife to £1,441 pm. The Supreme Court is going to consider whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to take the wife’s housing costs into account when considering her needs, given that these were supposed to have been met by the original capital settlement.
For an article in Family Law Week, including a link to an article by Amy Scollan about the Mills case, see http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed179238