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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

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