Latest News
Related Articles
McCartney Split - Implications for Divorcing Couples
What is significant about the judgment is that the award is based only on the needs of Ms Mills and the couple’s daughter. The implication of this is that the judge clearly considered that Ms Mills had added nothing of significance to the wealth of the McCartney household during their four years of marriage. The decision contrasts with the July 2007 divorce of insurance magnate John Charman and his wife Beverley, who received £48 million from Mr Charman’s £130 million-plus fortune.
It appears the courts are looking much more closely not only at the stated intentions of people going into a marriage but also at their relative contributions to the wealth created during the marriage. This does not mean that a ‘stay at home’ spouse will necessarily receive a small settlement. If they can demonstrate that they provided the environment and support which enabled or assisted the ‘go getter’ to amass wealth, then there is every chance of them being awarded a significant proportion of the marital assets, particularly if the marriage has lasted several years.
The other factor the court will consider is the wealth brought into the marriage by each party. By and large, the ‘non-marital assets’ are divided in the proportion in which each spouse or civil partner introduced them.
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.