Law firm acts on behalf of husband in spousal maintenance case, reducing cost by £50K

A Law firm acted on behalf of a husband in a spousal maintenance case, saving him £50K over the maintenance term. The outcome of the case shows a significant shift in how the Court handles maintenance disputes, which historically have leaned toward the recipient.

Weightman’s, a firm based in Leicester, represented a husband in his application to vary downwards spousal maintenance provision made in a financial consent order in 2019.

The case was centred around the husband’s plea based on the family’s changing financial circumstances, mainly on his ex-wife’s cohabitation with a new partner.

Weightman’s commented:

“This case reveals the complexities involved in reconsidering financial obligations while aiming for fairness to all parties. In truly grappling with the changes to the financial landscape, it marks a positive shift in the Court’s attitude towards payors in a system which has historically been seen to favour the recipient of maintenance payments.

“We were successful in securing a total reduction of approximately £50,000 over the maintenance term.”

After the divorce, the former wife remained living in the matrimonial home with the parties’ two teenage children. She suffered from Raynaud’s Disease and therefore had a ‘low capacity’ for earning.

Since early 2020 the wife had been in a cohabiting relationship with a new partner, which had lasted some 3 years by the time of the trial. In March 2021 the couple became engaged, although they denied plans to actually marry.

The cohabitee contributed to the family budget around £1,068 per month and also made a significant lump sum payment of approximately £270,000 to reduce the mortgage on the family home and repay some of the wife’s liabilities.

The 2019 order provided for the former husband to pay his ex-wife spousal maintenance until 2036, with a phased reduction of £1,500 a month until March 2027 and then £1,250 a month until March 2036 with a clean break and an end to payments.

This is in addition to child maintenance according to the standard CMS calculation.

In the light of the cohabitee’s financial contribution to the household and the obviously committed nature of the relationship, the former husband argued that spousal maintenance should be reduced immediately to £625 per month, backdated to the date of the application with a repayment of sums overpaid to date, and then should end on the sale of the family home.

The ex-wife disagreed with her former husband and argued for the continuation of the 2019 order with payments until 2036.

The key issues of the case were re-calculating the maintenance considering the cohabitee’s role and considering the former wife’s earning capacity.

The Judge recognised the commitment between the ex-wife and the cohabitee and the new partner’s significant contributions towards the blended family unit. According to Weightman’s ‘these elements could not be ignored’.

The former wife’s earning capacity was not as significant as argued by her previous husband, who could afford the maintenance based on his present financial standing.

The Judge, Williams, delineated the judgment into two periods: before and after the sale of the former family home which had been fixed as 2026 in the 2019 order.

During the first period, the cohabitee’s contributions were deemed appropriate, and the court felt that the former wife’s needs could not be further reduced although the period of time for payments at this rate was reduced by seven months to tie in with the youngest child leaving secondary education.

In the second period, which would be after 2026, the court anticipated improved finances, culminating in reduced maintenance needs. The court ordered a single adjustment in maintenance after the youngest child leaves secondary education, ensuring a phased reduction. The outcome was for spousal support to be paid at the rate of £1,500 a month for the first period and £750 per month for the second period and a pound for pound reduction for any Personal Independence Payment(PIP) awarded to the recipient.

Weightman’s have said: 

“This delineated approach and phased reduction in maintenance obligations signified an attempt to strike a fair balance among all parties involved, and importantly the former husband as the payor, who saved £50,000 over the course of the maintenance term.

“The case highlights the importance of the court acknowledging and addressing changes in financial circumstances to ensure more equitable outcomes.

“It is certainly a positive step towards fine tuning the perceived imbalance in maintenance obligations, and welcome news for payors.”