header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 September 2007
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Divorce Law Update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

VARIATION OF MAINTENANCE APPLICATIONS >>
CHANGES IN CAPITAL AND INCOME >>
COMPENSATION AND SHARING >>
CONSIDERATION OF NEEDS >>

Lauder v Lauder [2007] EWHC 1227 (Fam)

This case, heard by Mrs Justice Baron, was an appeal by Mrs Lauder against the decision of a district judge in April 2006 to award her a capital sum of £500,000 in final satisfaction of her application for an upwards variation and capitalisation of maintenance. On appeal, she sought a sum of £1.5m.

Mr and Mrs Lauder married in August 1961 and divorced in November 1985 having had three children. Mrs Lauder’s claims for income and capital were determined by consent in June 1988. She applied for an upwards variation of maintenance in December 2004.

The district judge’s order in April 2006 increased the level of spousal maintenance from £8,000 per annum during joint lives to £40,000 per annum, based upon a generous assessment of the wife’s needs. The maintenance was capitalised in accordance with annuity rate tables, arriving at the sum of £500,000.

Taking account of child maintenance,

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
Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll