|
JULIA McFarlane's QC told the Law Lords that she was entitled to £250,000 a year for life because she had put the "spadework" into her 16-year marriage to her husband Kenneth.
She could have had a shot at a high-flying career herself as a city solicitor, but instead gave up the chance of earning big money to look after her children, said Barry Singleton, QC.
In making their judgement yesterday, the Law Lords appear to have agreed with this assessment.
The couple met as students at Durham University and started living together in their 20s as their respective careers took off. Mrs McFarlane worked for a series of major London firms while Mr McFarlane worked his way up the corporate accounting ladder.
In the early stages of the marriage, she earned as much, if not more, than her husband, the House of Lords heard. She continued to work after the birth of the couple's first child, but when their second child was born in 1991 they agreed that she should stop work.
Over the next few years Mr McFarlane's career continued on an upward trajectory and he eventually became a senior tax partner at Deloittes earning in excess of £750,000 a year.
But in 2001 divorce proceedings began after the couple's marriage broke down.
She received the £1.5 million family home in London as one half of the family's capital assets while a district judge awarded her maintenance of £250,000 a year for life.
However, Mr McFarlane appealed and that figure was reduced to £180,000 for life.
Mrs McFarlane took the case to the Court of Appeal, which reinstated the £250,000 figure but imposed a five-year time limit, during which she was expected to save money to provide a lump sum to support a clean break.
But Mr Singleton argued before the Law Lords earlier this year that she had been left "significantly economically disadvantaged" since their divorce.
He said: "It's incorrect to ask what the wife's needs are and what she needs to make a clean break. That is discrimination by the back door. The reason she has not been earning money is because of her domestic contribution and sacrifice."
The Lords agreed and ruled that Mrs McFarlane was entitled to the £250,000 a year from her husband for life rather than just for five years. Lord Nicholls said the wife, who had given up her career to tend to her husband and their children, was entitled to a periodical payment to meet her financial needs but it would be "manifestly unfair" to confine her award to this.
He said the £250,000 a year represented not just financial needs but an amount for what he termed "compensation".
This case was originally heard at the same time as the case of Karen Parlour, former wife of Arsenal football player Ray Parlour, and therefore did not attract much publicity at the time.
Outside court Mrs McFarlane's lawyer James Pirrie said: "We are delighted for Julia. It is a ground-breaking ruling.
"Until today, maintenance for a stay-at-home mum was based purely on her living costs. Now judges must consider contribution and compensation for people like Julia. This is only fair. The judgment recognises her sacrifice and that marriage is a partnership."
Another member of Mrs McFarlane's legal team, Bradley Williams, said she was pleased with the outcome but disappointed that it had taken five years to get there with the consequential effects on her family life and children.
He added that Mrs McFarlane had given up her promising career as a city solicitor in 1991 with her husband's agreement so she could bring up their children. During this time his earning levels accelerated with her support.
| 
