England: Woman who made bad bargains with settlement money denied increased payouts from ex-husband

Graham Mills, 52, challenged a Court of Appeal order mandating that he pay an extra £4,090 a year to former wife Maria, 52.

He said he had provided enough, £230,000, for her to buy a house without a mortgage in 2002. Ms Mills, who took out a mortgage on a £345,000 property, said she needed further maintenance after losing her capital in property deals.

But five justices in the Supreme Court overturned the ruling, saying Mr Mills should not have to increase the monthly payments of £1,100.

Lord Wilson said: “There is no doubt that Mrs Mills needed the extra [£4,000] and that Mr Mills could have afforded to pay it. But we have no doubt that the trial judge was right [in refusing to order an increase].”

He added that “in fairness to Mrs Mills it is important to stress that the loss of her capital wasn’t as a result of wild living or extravagant speculation … simply from her entry into a series of ill-advised transactions.” 

“I have been penalised by prudence,” he said. “It does not seem just that I have to pay her while she only works three days a week and I have to go out to work five days a week. That seems like discrimination. Surely she has responsibility to move towards financial independence.” He added: “I am suffering the consequences of her decisions over which I had no control.”

Beverley Morris, of the law firm Lodders which acted for Mr Mills pro bono, said: “We heard that the Supreme Court would give guidance as to future cases. Clients come to us wanting to know the cost of their divorce, how long [maintenance] will last, and we would like some clarity. Why should any client make capital provision for their ex-spouse if they can’t be sure that there will be no consequences for foolish spending?”

Joanne Wescott, a partner with Osbornes Law, which represented Ms Mills, said: “The original spousal maintenance provision of £1,100 per month from 2002 remains intact. What the Supreme Court decided was that the £341 increase provided for by the Court of Appeal was wrong because it took into account an element of her rent.”

She added: “There has been a shift towards achieving a clean break and imposing a term on spousal maintenance but this does not apply in this case.”

Photo credit: UK Supreme Court