Mills v Mills
On an application to vary periodical payments, the court is not obliged to increase them to meet needs that arose because the recipient had mismanaged a capital award meant to meet her housing needs.
Facts
On their divorce, Mrs Mills received a capital sum which was intended to allow her to buy a home without a mortgage, and Mr Mills agreed to pay her periodical payments. She bought a series of more expensive properties with mortgages, and lost most of her capital, so that she was living in rented accommodation. When Mr Mills applied to reduce the periodical payments, she asked for them to be increased to cover her rent. The Court of Appeal increased the payments.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court allowed Mr Mills's appeal. Lord Wilson said that the judge had been entitled to decline to require Mr Mills to pay the rent, because he would be paying for Mrs Mills's housing needs for a second time. The court should consider all the circumstances, including the fact that the recipient had already received capital to meet her housing needs, and had dissipated it through her own decisions. It was not unfair to expect her to meet the rent from her own resources. The judge's order, which had not increased the payments to cover the full rent, was restored.
Related cases on financial remedies on divorce
- Barder v Caluori [1988] AC 20
- Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246
- Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 WLR 1410
- Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849
- Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41, [2012] Fam 1
- Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 2 AC 618
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 AC 534
- Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2016] AC 871
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
