header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 August 2018
Issue: 7804 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 3 August 2018

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Meal tickets; Look, no divorce!; Service charge fights

STARTER

The 156 paragraphs of Moylan LJ’s judgment in Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727, [2018] All ER (D) 44 (Apr) kept the wife’s meal on the table but its duration was reduced from joint lives to a term of circa four and half years with a bar. The husband’s estimated income for the hearing year was £3.7m and a substantial proportion of it was bonus related. On appeal, the wife went after a share of the future bonus income on the ground that it was a matrimonial asset which she was entitled to share as with any other asset. The bonus earning capacity had been built up during the marriage and was therefore the product of marital endeavour. Nice one but it got nowhere in the Court of Appeal. Treating the bonus as such would fundamentally undermine the court’s ability to effect a clean break.

MAIN COURSE

Did the Supreme Court seize the opportunity to kill off ‘meal tickets for life’ in Mills v Mills

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll