The Court of Appeal is today handing down its judgment in the case of Miller v Miller. The court has upheld the award of £4.5 million net made by Mr. Justice Singer on 5 April 2005 – see [2005] EWHC 528 (Fam).
It was agreed before the judge that Mr. Miller’s wealth was in the order of 17.5 million pounds, in addition to which he had shares valued between £12.35 million and £18.11 million. Cases in which is there wealth of this magnitude are unusual. So although this was a short and childless marriage between parties who are still young, the court decided that the judge was entitled to take into account a number of factors. These included: -
- the fact that Mrs Miller was committed to the marriage, and that it broke down because Mr. Miller formed an association with another woman;
- that by the marriage, Mr. Miller had given Mrs. Miller a reasonable expectation that her life as once again a single woman need not revert to what it had been before the marriage, and that she should be able to live at a significantly better standard in terms of accommodation and spendable income, even if at one which did not approach the level that Mr. Miller can afford for himself and his new family;
- that she was entitled to go on living in the former matrimonial home (which represented £2.3 million of the £5 million award) but she had to transfer to Mr. Miller her share, worth £500,000 in their holiday home in France;
- that Mr Miller had bought a home for himself and his new family for £6.25 million;
- the fact that the judge was not limited to an award based on need or limited to putting Mrs. Miller “back on her feet”;
- the award was not disproportionate when assessed against Mr. Miller’s overall wealth, which was likely to increase in the future;
- that this was a clean break, once and for all case.
Following the decision of the House of Lords in White v White (2000), the function of the judge was to apply the terms of section 25(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to the facts of the case in order to arrive at a fair result which avoided discrimination. Like all post divorce financial orders, the judge’s order depends on the particular facts of the case. It is not a case in which an equal division of assets is appropriate. Like all financial disputes between former spouses the result depends upon the exercise of a judicial discretion taking into account all the factors listed in section 25(2) of the Act A copy of the text of section 25(2) is attached to this press release. The court has decided that Singer J exercised his discretion appropriately and in accordance with the Act.
Matters to which the court is to have regard in deciding how to exercise its powers under ss 23, 24 and 24a of the Matrimonial Causes act 1973
Section 25(1) of the Act imposes a duty on the court “to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, first consideration being given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family who has not attained the age of eighteen.
Section 25(2) provides that the court “shall in particular have regard to the following matters”: -
- the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, including in the case of earning capacity any increase in that capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire;
- the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
- the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;
- the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;
- any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;
- the contributions which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family;
- the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it;
- in the case of proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage, the value to each of the parties to the marriage or any benefit which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring.
A summary of the judgment is being made available in court.
Ends
