Comments on: McFarlane v McFarlane: A Divorce Seesaw

By: Marilyn Stowe

Marilyn Stowe — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:26:50 +0000

From a practical perspective I am sorry to report I have noticed that demands in relation to capitalisation of maintenance have already increased substantially since this judgment was handed down in cases in which my firm is involved- including for ‘non Macfarlane’ former wives who have not given up careers to be homemakers. It has made the task of resolving capitalisation claims amicably more difficult and husbands caught up in such cases deeply resentful.
I am struggling to see why long after divorce when the husband has gone on to earn significantly more than he did during the marriage, a wife is entitled to hugely increased payouts, far in excess of her acknowledged need out of his increased post divorce income to which she has made no contribution.

By: Michael McNaughton

Michael McNaughton — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:23:55 +0000

I have already commented that one crumb of consolation for Mr M was that the payments will finally cease ion 2015. He will have to pay an extra £800,000 over 8 years but at least he can look forward to his eventual discharge How much would he have had to pay to capitalise a lifetime order of £250,000 a year, even allowing for a reduction on retirement ?

Of course, as Mr Wyatt says, Mrs M could apply for an extension but it would take some pretty ingenious reasoning to argue that she could not adjust without undue difficulty to the termination of maintenance payments.

By: John Wyatt

John Wyatt — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:56:56 +0000

I should have added:

Why should Mrs M benefit from the increased salary of Mr M, given that the increase has been achieved after the end of the marriage?

If we have the concept of no fault divorce in England, then why should one party be penalised and then having paid the penalty be penailsed again? – we would not send someone to prison for, say, 5 years and then at the end of year 4 say actually old chap we have decided to increase your sentence by another 3 years!!

What the law has effectively done is creae an implied lien over anything Mr M now earns – after all – who is to say Mrs M will not think of another reason to come back and have another shot and what if Mr M is made redundant ??

By: John Wyatt

John Wyatt — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:46:46 +0000

This is Iniquitous! I was on the wrong end of a Mcfarlane 1 decision despite having been divorced by my ex-wife 7 years ago. She came back to court in 2006 and effecitvely got 1/3 of everything I earned plus child maintenance, plus school fees!

Am I now going to face a further smash and grab raid?, particualrly as i have just finished paying school fees.

i thought slavery was abolished in the UK – yet this is eage slavery by any other name. Mr Mcfarlane is now trapped – if he were to go for a modest job – his ex- wife would still get 40% if he were to give up entirely he would no doubt find himself lacking in self respect and certainly not doing the”right thing” by his new wife.

Why did the courts allow Mrs M to come back so soon after getting her award of £250 000 p.a. – as if that wre not enough.

Given that English Law now seems to be in a complete and utter mess in this field I would recommend to Mr M that he emigrates and becomes an economic fugitive!!!!!

I can only suggest to Divorce Lawyers that they get the law looked at in this area – before someone takes the law into their own hands!

By: Deborah Smithies

Deborah Smithies — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:46:35 +0000

Fascinating. I’m inclined to agree with you, not that I’m an expert! I’ll have a look at the judgment – it’ll be interesting to see the reasoning.