A man has been allowed to reduce the amount he agreed to pay his former wife even though the original divorce settlement was part of a court order.

The couple had been equal shareholders in a computer software business. When they separated in 2001, the business was sold to a large conglomerate. The husband was to remain with the business on a two-year contract earning £200,000 a year. He was also entitled to receive further payment in three lump sums.

The divorce settlement ordered by the court stipulated that he should pay a share of these lump sums to his former wife. He did pay her the first two amounts but then he resigned from the business because he found his new working conditions unacceptable.

This meant he did not receive his third lump sum and so wasn’t in a position to provide his former wife with her share which amounted to £200,000.

The initial court order said that the husband’s liability to pay the lump sums to his wife depended on him receiving the money in the first place from his firm. If he didn’t receive the money then his liability would be rateably reduced.

The wife argued that this should not apply because he had chosen to leave the firm and so had lost the money through his own choice rather than for reasons beyond his control. She took the matter back to court but the ruling went against her.
 
The judge ruled that the original order had been clearly worded and if the wife had wanted to include a provision for what should happen if her husband chose to resign then she should have done so at the time.

The husband had resigned despite the financial consequences to both of them, not just her.
However the order had provided that the husband’s liability should be rateably reduced so that there should be overall parity between them in the division of their assets. Therefore, he was ordered to pay a reduced sum of £81,000 rather than the expected £200,000.