An Appeals Court judge has told the
ex-wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon to get a job and stop thinking she
has the right to expect “an income for life” at her former
husband’s expense.
 |
| Tracey Wright. Pic Courtesy: The Guardian |
Lord Justice Pitchford said divorcees
with children aged over seven should work for a living in a noteworthy decision
which signals an end to leisurely living for ex partners of wealthy spouses.
Former riding instructor and
mother-of-two Tracey Wright, 51, chose not to be a working mother when she
split up with top equine surgeon Ian Malcolm Wright in 2008.
After 11 years of marriage, the
couple's £1.3 million, seven-bedroom home, set in 16 acres of Suffolk
countryside, was ordered to be sold and the proceeds split.
Mrs Wright came away with a £450,000
mortgage-free house in the heart of riding country, in Newmarket, Suffolk, plus
stabling for her horse and her daughters' ponies.
Her ex-husband was also ordered to pay
her and the children £75,000-a-year in maintenance and school fees.
However, last year Mr Wright, 59, who
is one of UK’s top vets, went to the High Court to seek a cut in his bills.
He protested it was not fair that he be
expected to keep supporting his ex-wife indefinitely, even after his
retirement, whilst she made "no effort whatsoever to seek work".
A family judge's reaction was to
respond to Mrs Wright, of Wickhambrook, Newmarket, with "harsh
words."
The mother was told to "just get
on with it" and get a job, like "vast numbers of other women with
children."
Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting at the
Court of Appeal, has now rejected her challenge to the decision to slash her
future maintenance.
Mr Wright runs a
cutting edge equine hospital in Newmarket, carrying out life-saving surgery on
top-class horses, including former Derby and Oaks winners and stallions at stud
worth tens of millions of pounds.
He and Mrs Wright, a
former legal secretary and riding instructor, married in 1997 and divorced in
2008, having separated in 2006.
As part of the
divorce order, Mrs Wright, who lives with the couple's youngest daughter, aged
10, was handed £75,000 yearly payments, of which £33,200 was spousal
maintenance for her personal upkeep.
The court was
worried that supporting his wife would be unaffordable after Mr. Wright retires
at the age of 65.
Judge Lynn Roberts
last year agreed that there was no good reason why Mrs Wright had not done a
stroke of paid work in the six years since the divorce.
The judge criticised
her for being "evasive on the subject of her own earning capacity".
"The world of
work has innumerable possibilities these day...vast numbers of women with
children just get on with it and Mrs Wright should have done as well," the
judge said.
"I do not think
the children will suffer if Mrs Wright has to work, and indeed a working mother
at this stage of their lives may well provide them with a good role model.
"It is possible
to find work that fits in with childcare responsibilities. I reject her other
reasons relating to responsibilities for animals, or trees, or housekeeping.
"Mrs Wright has
made no effort whatsoever to seek work or to update her skills...I am satisfied
that she has worked on the basis...that she would be supported for life.
"It is
essential... that she starts to work now," said the judge, who ordered
that her personal maintenance payments from her ex-husband must cease, with a
gradual tailing off over a five-year period leading up to his retirement.
Counsel Mark Johnston, for
the wife, challenging that ruling, protested that having to care for a
10-year-old - the couple's older daughter being a boarding pupil at a public
school - "is an inherent restriction on her ability to develop any kind of
earning capacity in the next five years."
He warned that Judge
Roberts' order would cause "a plummeting in the standard of living"
of the youngest child.
The assets Mrs
Wright received in the split "wouldn't come anywhere near allowing the
wife to adjust without undue hardship...especially with one child still at
home."
Upholding Judge
Roberts' ruling, however, Lord Justice Pitchford confirmed that it is now
"imperative that the wife go out to work and support herself."
"The time had
come to recognize that, at the time of his retirement, the husband should not
be paying spousal maintenance," he said.
"The wife had
done nothing since 2008 to look for work, retrain or to prepare herself for
work.
"Judge Roberts
did not accept any of the explanations put forward by the wife for her
inactivity and ruled that it was important that she obey the order.
"She had harsh
words for the wife for her complete failure to confront her obligation to
contribute financially. She found the wife exaggerated her income needs.
"There is a
general expectation that, once children are in year two, mothers can begin part
time work and make a financial contribution," he went on.
Mr Wright had been
found to be "a man of integrity who had done nothing to mislead the
court".
"But the judge
found the wife was an unsatisfactory witness; particularly on the subject of
her own earning capacity she was evasive", he added.
"The judge made
it very clear that, within a couple of years, she would be expected to
contribute financially.
"The question
is whether there is a real prospect of establishing that the judge gave
inadequate reasons for her decision that the husband should provide no spousal
maintenance in his retirement. In my view there is no such prospect."
Lord Justice
Pitchford said that "the order was never intended to provide the wife with
an income for life".
And he concluded:
"The onus will henceforth be on her. This application is dismissed."
