This month, the Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal in Waggott v Waggott because it was stated that it was not based on an arguable point of law. The appeal was a wife’s challenge on the Appeal Court’s decision to end periodical payments from her ex-husband.

The parties were married in 2000, had a child in 2004 and separated in 2012. The wife ceased working as an accountant in 2001 while the husband had a successful career. By the end of 2014 he was earning a £3m annual salary.

The original agreement regarding the assets was to equally divide the £16m capital assets. However, the parties disagreed as to how much the wife should get from the husband’s future income. Originally, a Judge ordered the husband to pay the wife an amount to cover the balance remaining from her capital payments, but both parties challenged this decision at the Court of Appeal.

The wife’s appeal was dismissed but the husband was allowed to cross-appeal and a ruling was made that the payments to the wife would now cease on 1 March 2021.

Following the judgement, the national media debated whether the days of the so-called ‘meal ticket for life’ were now numbered. The Supreme Court said that one of the main issues was the question of whether the earning capacity of one party should be treated as a matrimonial asset to which the other party should have a share of in the future. Another issue was whether it was fair to expect a homemaker party to use their capital award to meet their future income needs, where the working party could meet their needs and retain their capital assets untouched. Lawyers will be waiting for further guidance as the position is unclear.