Landmark ruling for divorced wives

BRITAIN - Thousands of divorced women who gave up high-flying careers for the sake of their marriages could qualify for millions in compensation after a House of Lords ruling in favour of ex-wives.

The judgments considered two divorce cases involving super-rich husbands and set down new principles for the fair division of a married couple's assets.

They are expected to trigger more claims from wives who still receive maintenance payments from their husbands but feel they have not been properly compensated for giving up lucrative careers.

Julia McFarlane, who was married to a senior tax partner at Deloittes earning more than £750,000 ($2.1 million) a year, was awarded £250,000 ($730,000) a year for life, not just for the five years decided by the Court of Appeal.

In the second appeal, the law lords decided that Melissa Miller was entitled to keep the £5m ($14.6 million) awarded out of her ex-husband Alan's £17.5m ($51.1 million) fortune.

Mrs McFarlane said she gave up a high-earning career when she married 18 years earlier.

Her lawyer, James Pirrie, described the judgment as "ground-breaking" and said: "Until today, maintenance for stay-at-home mothers was going to be based purely on living expenses.

Now judges must consider, as well, contribution and compensation.

For people like Julia, this is only fair."

The judgment takes account of Mrs McFarlane's sacrifice and recognises that marriage should regarded as a partnership.

She had come to a joint decision with her husband, Kenneth, to give up her career to raise their children, which enabled him to increase his earning power.

'Encourage litigation'

Emma Hatley, of the family team at the solicitors Withers which represented Mrs Miller, warned that ex-wives might now want to return to court to challenge maintenance orders.

"The judgment creates uncertainty and will encourage litigation by those who can afford it," she said.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, who gave the lead ruling, said courts in the past had based awards on the duration of marriages.

This meant they had relied on the principle that it was "fundamentally unfair" that someone who had been in a marriage for a short time should receive the same as a party who had made domestic contributions for more than 20 years.

He said: "This approach would mean on the breakdown of a short marriage, the money earner would have a head start over the home maker and child carer."

For the same reasons courts should be "exceedingly slow" to make a distinction between family assets and business or investment assets.

"The equal sharing principle applies to the former as well as the latter," Lord Nicholls said.

Mrs Miller, whose husband lost his appeal, said she had been told by her lawyers from the start of the litigation three years ago to expect £5m ($14.6 million) from the settlement.

"Although this has been a long and exhausting process, it is a wonderful result that leaves me delighted with my legal team," she said.

Mr Miller challenged an earlier order that he pay his ex-wife the £5m ($14.6 million) after their brief marriage failed.

The Millers, who lived in Chelsea, were married for two years and nine months and had no children when they separated.

In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle to be published tomorrow, Mr Miller, 42, a chief investment officer at New Star Asset Management, delivers a damning criticism of litigation in the divorce courts.

"It seems to me I have been penalised for the high standard of living I gave my wife during our short marriage, and that the law lords have not given enough weight to my long career that pre-dated the marriage during which my earning capacity was built," he says.

"There should be a fair compensation for the breakdown of a marriage, but surely this should not equate to a meal ticket for life after a short, childless marriage."

He adds: "The impression of the system I was left with was one which discourages the parties from talking to each other, driving still greater wedges between them.

"The interests of the parties become subservient to the massive egos of the solicitors and barristers involved...

"The family law system in this country is a shocking disgrace."

- INDEPENDENT