She was not permitted provision for a second home in London when there was no history of her having had this during the marriage. Her budget of £500,000 to renovate the “tired” family home “plucked from the air” by the valuer of the property was reduced to £50,000.
In the face of such a difficult litigant, one cannot criticise Mrs F for seeking a sum far higher than the court provided her with.
The old saying, “if you don’t ask, you don’t get” rings true and the determination of what a party’s “reasonable needs” are often involves a tug of war between two extremes of spending – often with neither truly reflecting the standard of living that was really experienced during the marriage.
Nevertheless, when the calculation of needs remains a discretionary exercise of the judge then a well-crafted budget will be a key foundation of a party’s case, which combines factual spending with aspirational requirements widely drawn but with intellectual justification.
The fact that Mrs F wanted a second home in London, despite not having enjoyed this facility during the marriage, did not deter her from seeking one so that she could be closer to her family, her network of support and her place of work.
However, the judge found that there was not sufficient capital to buy such a property and that the amounts she quoted for rental costs were too high. But that, ultimately, once she had received her financial settlement she could then cut her cloth as she wished and take a property in London, though at the risk that she may run out of money sooner than forecasted.
Doing the sums
Any assessment of needs by the court is a forecast.
It is not an exact science and usually the two components of the formula are the cost of housing plus the maintenance sum needed to meet future living costs.
If there is sufficient capital, then the maintenance can be capitalised into a one-off sum or series of sums paid over a short period of time.
How the party receiving that maintenance then chooses to spend the money is up to them and, if spent unwisely, is almost impossible where a clean break has taken effect to come back for more.
As far as the trust is concerned, the following principles were applied:
