header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 May 2015 / Sarah Hughes
Issue: 7651 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

The (W)right approach

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_may_8_hughes

When should maintenance payments stop, asks Sarah Hughes

The highly publicised case of Wright v Wright [2015] EWCA Civ 201 has caused a stir following a comment by Lord Justice Pitchford that wives with children aged seven or older should “just get on with it” and go back to work like many other women with children.

This has led to a flurry of enquiries from (typically) ex-husbands asking whether they can stop paying their ex-wives maintenance and force them to go back to work instead.

Wright v Wright

This case involved a wife, Tracey Wright (now aged 51) and her ex-husband, Ian Wright (now aged 59). Mr Wright was an equine surgeon. Mrs Wright had worked prior to the marriage as a legal secretary and administrator but had left work to care for their two children of the marriage, now aged 10 and 16. It was a nine-year marriage.

They divorced in 2008 and the financial order made by District Judge Cushing required Mr Wright to pay joint lives spousal maintenance of £33,200 per

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