The House of Lords does not usually get involved in financial divorce cases, pronouncing only very rarely. The last time they did so was in 2000, when they drove a coach and horses through family law as it stood at the time by stating that there should be no gender discrimination between the breadwinner husband and the homemaker spouse, and that all cases should be judged by reference to the 'yardstick of equality' (although they omitted to say where to find it or exactly what it meant).

As a result, the Family Division has spent the last six years uncertain whether the Lords meant an equal division of capital even where the marriage has lasted only a few years and whether it applies to income in those cases where there is not enough capital to leave the wife in clover for the rest of her life.

Melissa Miller was married to Alan for less than three years because of the relationship he formed with another woman. For many years, it has been an established principle in the family courts that adultery is not sufficiently bad conduct to allow the court to financially penalise the adulterer. Yet the Judge who heard Melissa's case in the Court of Appeal thought it should be taken into account and awarded her £5 million out of her husband's £17.5 million fortune.

By no means was this half, but given it was a short marriage and hitherto wives have been given just sufficient to make them comfortable, this was a huge award. Alan was, perhaps not surprisingly, unhappy and he appealed. Today he must surely remain unhappy as the Lords have said his adultery is still not conduct for which they are penalising him, but they must take into account that the breakdown of the marriage was not Melissa's fault and the fact that when she had married him she had been entitled to believe that she had left any financial hardship behind forever and that in any event, he can afford it. So, Melissa keeps her £5 million settlement and if she wants, she can still go back to work where she will no doubt soon earn the £85,000 per year she earned before the marriage.

As for Julia McFarlane, the Lords have decided that after a lengthy marriage of 16 years she can effectively have half of her husband's income to reflect the fact that she gave up a highflying City career to bring up his three children, and she can keep at least half of the family assets.

So, now the law is a bit clearer - short marriages can lead to huge settlements and long(-ish) marriages to wealthy men mean half of everything. Poor Sir Paul McCartney, after a marriage of less than three years to Heather Mills he can no doubt afford to meet her expectations of mega bucks forever and is probably now looking at a settlement of millions of pounds (which he can surely afford in the Lords' eyes).

Yet can it be fair that under our present law Heather would have been left with diddly-squat had she not married him? What a difference those words in the marriage ceremony make...

Philippa Pearson is the author of the 'DIY Separation & Divorce Kit' and 'Unmarried Couples and the Law', both published by Lawpack Publishing. She specialises in all aspects of family law and is a member of the SFLA National Committee, the Lord Chancellor's Ancillary Relief Advisory Group and the SFLA Law Reform Committee. She practices as a solicitor at Norris and Miles solicitors in Tenbury Wells, a firm specialising in family, private client, conveyancing and company law, as well as commercial and civil litigation. Philippa also writes and lectures on many aspects of family law.

Useful Information
DIY Separation & Divorce Kit by Philippa Pearson
New Rules mean you're in it together on Costs
Protecting yourself during divorce
Do I need a solicitor?