BRITAIN: The ex-wives of two high-earning men won the right to a large chunk of their former husbands' wealth yesterday, when Britain's highest court laid down principles that are expected to guide UK divorce lawyers for a generation.
Experts predicted the judgment would see more rich men spurning marriage and insisting on prenuptial agreements - which are not strictly enforceable but are influential with judges.
For the first time, the House of Lords ruled that wives who give up potentially lucrative careers to raise children are entitled to compensation for their sacrifice in cases where the family's resources exceed their needs.
The Lords also ruled that a short marriage is no less a partnership than a long one and that a non-working, childless woman whose marriage to a rich man lasts fewer than three years is still entitled to a substantial share of the wealth built up during the marriage.
The five Law Lords unanimously upheld a high court judge's award of £5 million sterling to Melissa Miller (36) from the estimated £20 million-£30 million fortune of her ex-husband, Alan, a high-flying fund manager. The couple's marriage lasted two years nine months.
In the second case, 46-year-old Julia McFarlane had a court of appeal ruling that put a five-year limit on annual maintenance payments of £250,000 from her former husband Kenneth's earnings of £750,000 reversed. The judges said the payments should be for life, until she remarries or until Mr McFarlane, a tax adviser, applies to the court for a further order - leaving it open to him to offer a lump sum in future to "buy off" her entitlement to continuing maintenance.
Ms McFarlane, who gave up a career as a lawyer to bring up their three children, has already agreed with her ex-husband to a 50-50 split of the family's property, worth over £2 million.
The Law Lords' judgment, which sets out the principles that should apply where assets and earnings exceed the former partners' needs, has implications for the divorce of the former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, who were together for four years.
Lord Nicholls said the length of the marriage was "highly relevant" in deciding whether the less wealthy partner should get a share of assets brought into the marriage - "non-matrimonial property" - rather than built up during it. "In the case of a short marriage, fairness may well require that the claimant should not be entitled to a share of the other's non-matrimonial property," said Lord Nicholls. However, the fact the couple have a child together means Ms Mills will get more.
Ms Miller, an American earning £85,000 a year in public relations and living in a rented flat when she met Mr Miller, said: "Although this has been a long and exhausting process, it is a wonderful result." Her former husband branded the legal process "horrific" and the family law system "a shocking disgrace".