A man whose wife was awarded 70 per cent of the couple’s capital in their divorce settlement has lost his appeal against the ruling.
The couple had been married for a decade and jointly owned five homes. When the couple divorced, the man was ordered to pay his former wife ‘periodical’ maintenance payments of £1,070 per month, index linked to inflation until their son, then three, begin secondary school. Meanwhile, the wife was awarded 70 per cent of the couple’s joint capital because she would be the ‘resident’ parent, looking after their son. In addition the husband had higher earning potential than his former wife and would continue to do so. The higher share would allow her to buy another home to live in and pay off some debts.
The husband was unhappy with the settlement and appealed.
But appeal court judges Lady Justice Black and Sir Stephen Sedley ruled against him. They said the original judge ha been entitled to conclude that the husband had the capacity to work longer hours and earn money for the family, while the wife would be restricted her ability to work by caring for their child.
“…first consideration … to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family who has not attained the age of eighteen.”
The judge had not ignored the husband’s needs and he would still be able to meet is expenses, the Appeal Court declared.