Wow, the CE forum is hopping nowadays
Link.
The story is interesting because of the grounds given for divorcees to extract considerable sums from their partners.
I don't think the first one is terribly controversial, but the second one (the Miller's) seems like it's going one step too far.
The Law Lords are effectively upholding the part of the ruling that said
Quote:
|
A judge had decided Mrs Miller was entitled to a substantial settlement because she married with "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle.
|
Now this was only after a two year marriage, she was not looking after children as in the first case.
I can understand divorce settlments giving a fair share, I can even understand 'compensation' for the giving up of a career as in the first case, but it seems to me that many people can have a "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle but this doesn't mean they're entitled to one! It seems like a lousy platform from which to make law. And she gets £250,000 a year for life (about $400,000) for simply marrying the guy for two years? It would have been cheaper for him to hire a prostitute as a companion for that time...
What do y'all think? Unjust?
[ 05-26-2006, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]