David Burrows examines the decision in Mills v Mills & what it means for maintenance for a dependent spouse
- To what extent should a court duplicate a periodical payments liability for a spouse who has mismanaged her finances?
- When should the court consider capitalisation of periodical payments?
- To what extent should an appellate court interfere with the statutory discretion of a first instance judge?
The recent ‘meal ticket for life’ Supreme Court case of Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38, [2018] All ER (D) 107 (Jul) (18 July 2018) operates on three levels:
- variation of periodical payments (‘meal ticket for life’);
- capitalisation of periodical payments; and (hovering in the background); and
- the extent of an appellate court’s interference with a first instance judge (in this case His Honour Judge Mark Everall QC sitting in the Central Family Court).
The Supreme Court appeal related to the application of Mrs Mills (W) to vary periodical payments which had been part of a consent order made in 2002; and the application of Mr Mills (H) to capitalise the periodical payments the consent order required
