The concept of ‘compensation’

VB v JP [2008] EWHC 112 (Fam), [2008] All ER (D) 230 (Jan); NLJ 4 April p 472

The husband was a partner in a city firm of solicitors and the wife had been a personnel manager with prospects of rising to becoming a director but had given up her career to raise the family. When the ancillary relief proceedings were heard in 2001, the husband’s net income was £340,000 per year and he agreed to pay periodical payments to the wife of £33,000 a year for herself, and periodical payments of £24,000 a year for the benefit of each of the two children until they reached the age of 17 or ceased full-time tertiary education, or further order. The husband also agreed to pay school fees and reasonable extras and BUPA for the wife and children. He was therefore committing 34% of his net income to maintenance including school fees. There was a capital clean break. In October 2006, the wife claimed her expenditure had increased to £51,000 per annum and the boy’s expenses had more than doubled since the original order. She could no longer manage and applied for increased maintenance based on compensation as propounded in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 3 All ER 1. She claimed to be entitled to a premium by way of compensation because she had been denied the opportunity to pursue her career progression in favour of looking after the children.