Mr Vaughan and the ruling about first wives

Although the exact details of the Court of Appeal’s decision concerning Mr Vaughan are not yet available, the press reports suggest that this case will strike terror into the hearts of ex-husbands and second wives.

Mr  Vaughan had been paying maintenance to his first wife following their divorce 25 years ago but applied to have the payments stopped when he retired. 

Despite the extent to which Mr Vaughan’s pension fund has been built up during his second marriage, the Court of Appeal gave the first Mrs Vaughan a lump sum of £215,000 to enable her to adjust, without hardship, to the loss of maintenance of £27,145 per year. 

One of the most influential strands of thought in family law since the turn of the century has been in relation to a wife’s contribution.   However “traditional” the roles adopted in a marriage, in nearly every case, the wife will be regarded as having contributed equally to the acquisition of the assets built up during a marriage.

On that basis, the second Mrs Vaughan could have regarded herself as having contributed equally to the pension fund which was going to provide for her and Mr Vaughan following his retirement.

The decision is a stark reminder that financial needs will very often outweigh an argument based on contribution, however well founded.

The Court of Appeal clearly felt that whatever the source of Mr Vaughan’s pension fund, the first Mrs Vaughan’s need for a lump sum instead of maintenance was the important factor, notwithstanding the fact that she lived alone in a 4 bedroom house worth over 1 million pounds.

I should emphasise that this decision does not go as far as saying that a second wife’s assets can be used to provide for a former wife but it does illustrate how an entitlement to ongoing maintenance can be capitalised long after a divorce.

For further information about divorce and divorce settlements, contact Anne Blenkinsop, Partner specialising in Family Law.