GBP215,000 pay out nearly 30 years after marriage breakdown - 01/04/2010

The internet is alive with comments about the eye-watering £215,000 award delivered to Phillippa Vaughan by the high court nearly thirty years after the break-up of her marriage to barrister David Vaughan QC. Many centre on Mrs. Vaughan's original request for £560,000 (before reducing it to £341,000) to off-set her undue hardship and to prevent her being left with a totally inadequate income following her husband's attempt to end the maintenance payments of £27,175 a year and question why she cannot make do with her £770,000 inheritance from her parents.

David Vaughan set the ball rolling when he applied to the court to terminate the payments to his first wife when he contemplated retirement, recommended following his heart problems and a stroke. The first Mrs. Vaughan countered with her demand for £560,000 for the avoidance of hardship. The deputy high court judge terminated the payments and rejected Mrs. Vaughan's demand ruling that the sale of some of her assets, which apparently include an antique desk valued at £300,000, together with her inheritance would provide an adequate income of around £48,000. However, not only was this ruling was reversed by the high court, apparently it was also felt that Mr. Vaughan's pension pot that had been entirely built up with his second wife during his second marriage was fair game saying it was illogical to attribute half the pension pot to the current Mrs. Vaughan, although surely any other wife would be entitled to half such a pension pot?

The issue is clearly far wider than just the sums of money involved. Decades ago the law sought to break the pattern of first wives' financial dependence on their former husbands, women who were capable of working were not automatically granted maintenance. How many times and for how long can the first wife come again to the human cash machine ex-husband for financial support and how long will second wives put up with having the family wealth which they help to build diminished by the first wife.

This case may have opened the doors to a flood of women who previously thought that too much time had passed to ever be able to tap their former husbands for money.

[Back to news]