Supreme Court to consider maintenance payments

Divorce|August 11th 2017

A divorced man told earlier this year that he had to support his ex-wife for life is to have his appeal considered by the Supreme Court.

In February the Court of Appeal ruled that Graham Mills must increase the maintenance he pays he ex-wife to £1,441 per month, because “she was now unable to meet her basic needs”. She had lost much of the substantial settlement she received following their 2002 divorce after a series of “unwise property investments”.

Mr Mills had applied for permission to stop, or at least cut, the payments due, arguing that his former wife was in a position to earn more money than she did. The judge at the first hearing ruled that the payments should continue unchanged. The wife, who had wanted an increase, appealed.

When the Court of Appeal went a step further and actually increased his payments, Mr Mills decided to try and pursue the case, launching a crowdfunding campaign to cover his legal costs.

The Supreme Court has now granted Mr Mills permission to appeal but on a single ground only: whether or not the Court of Appeal was wrong to take his former wife’s housing costs into account, given that these had already been catered for in the initial divorce settlement.

The hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Share This Post...


  1. Andy says:

    Bloody typical of today’s children accounted for, no information as prior payment history and divorce settlement.The ex wife made bad judgements on property purchasing..And the courts awarded more…
    No wonder today’s court decisions are met with hostilities based on these facts also the hard up ex wife who can’t afford to live or standards of living..
    Once divorced then your on your such cases as these no wonder people lose faith…get a bloody job…
    Wish I could be given tax free £1400 pm.I have to work for that then pay the joke CMS…another story!!!
    (*Comment moderated)

  2. Andrew says:

    A thought.

    If his appeal succeeds and his SM is reduced will the reduction he back-dated to when he applied: and if not why not?
    And if it is back-dated will he be able to collect the over-payment by stopping paying altogether until it is recovered: and if not why not?

  3. D says:

    A governance and judiciary that rewards bad judgement, ignorance, not taking responsibility and lack of action? Still a majority UK population that’s unable to look after itself properly, doesn’t aspire to create anything is unlikely to question authority and will most likely follow any future authority’s rules on exactly how to live. So there are some good points. 🙂

  4. Andrew says:

    Is the Court of Appeal’s judgment reported?

Leave a Reply


Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy