Call us today 0115 9 100 200

Landmark ‘meal ticket’ case sets the tone for lifelong maintenance claims during divorce

In a recent high profile divorce case, the High Court clearly restricted claims for future maintenance payments from post-separation earnings.

The case involved Mr and Mrs Waggott, a wealthy couple who were married 21 years before their divorce in 2014.

Both agreed that their capital resources (housing, cars, savings etc.) should be split equally, with Mrs Waggott awarded a £9.76m sum and £175,000 maintenance per year for the rest of her life.

Despite this, she felt entitled to more, making a claim that she came to regret.

After appeals from the couple, Mrs Waggott ended up with a reduced sum of £8.4m, receiving her £175,000 maintenance payments up until 2021 only.

She was also awarded an additional £1.4m for deferred income post separation, whilst her husband received £7.8m overall.

As this shows, getting expert legal advice before or during a divorce can have an invaluable effect on the outcome, particularly if an appeal is made.

On top of this, there are a number of other key lessons that anyone going through a divorce can learn from.

The appeal

  • Mrs Waggott’s barrister claimed that maintenance payments of £190,000 would be a fairer share of her husband’s income
  • She felt that Mr Waggott’s earning capacity was a matrimonial asset to be shared (as it had built up during their marriage) and claimed for 35% of his net bonuses
  • Mr Waggott also appealed, arguing his earning capacity is not an asset to divide up
  • His barrister favoured a clean break between the parties and suggested maintenance payments should only be for a fixed period, giving Mrs Waggott time to adjust
  • The barrister also suggested that Mrs Waggott should return to work

The outcome

  • Mrs Waggott’s appeal was rejected by the court whilst her husband’s appeal was accepted
  • Maintenance payments were ruled to end after just three years, due to concerns over the lack of ‘financial incentive’ for her to earn money
  • This maintenance period would allow for adjustment, allowing Mrs Waggott to avoid “undue hardship” when the payments end
  • Earning capacity was not shared as a matrimonial asset, as Mrs Waggott’s needs could be met by her own earned income or captial
  • To summarise, Mrs Waggott’s wish to gain a ‘meal ticket for life’ was not granted

Key lessons

  • An appeal can leave you in a much less favourable position than you were in beforehand
  • To claim on your spouse’s future earnings, you must be able to prove that you need it
  • Capital settlements will often be used to compensate those that have given up their career for marriage – like Mrs Waggott

For more information or advice on this or any other Family Law issue, please get in touch with our team of specialist Family Lawyers on 0115 9 100 200 or send us a message.

Posted on June 13, 2018

This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and deliver personalised ads. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

More Information Accept All Cookies