Waggott v Waggott
The sharing principle does not apply to a spouse's earning capacity after the marriage, so a wife was not entitled to share in her former husband's future earnings beyond her needs.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Waggott were divorced after a long marriage. Mr Waggott was a very highly paid company executive. The judge divided the capital equally and ordered him to pay periodical payments for life, at a level that would allow Mrs Waggott to maintain her standard of living. Mrs Waggott argued that she was entitled to share in his future earnings, because his earning capacity had been built up during the marriage. Mr Waggott argued that the periodical payments should end after a term.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal rejected Mrs Waggott's argument and allowed Mr Waggott's appeal in part. Moylan LJ said that the sharing principle applies only to the property acquired during the marriage, and not to earning capacity, which is not an asset to be shared. The court said that periodical payments should be based on needs, and that the court should make a clean break where possible. Periodical payments should be limited to a term, so that Mrs Waggott would have to adjust to the end of the payments, given the substantial capital she had received.
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
- Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38, [2018] 3 WLR 1170
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 AC 534
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.
