The ex-wife of a leading barrister was awarded a lump sum of £215,000 from him yesterday, 25 years after the couple were divorced.

Philippa Vaughan, 66, an art historian, argued that she had been caused “undue hardship” after her maintenance payment of £27,175 a year was cancelled last year.

David Vaughan, QC, who has a fortune estimated at £5 million, had paid maintenance since 1991. He applied to the High Court to stop the payments when his income dropped after he retired.

The Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that Mrs Vaughan, who has no earned income, should not get a lump sum instead. An expert in Islamic and Indian art, she lives alone in a four-bedroom house worth more than £1 million in Hammersmith, West London.

Making the ruling in the Family Division, Lord Justice Wilson said that it was “plainly wrong” that Mrs Vaughan could adjust to the end of payments without hardship. The couple divorced in 1985 and Mr Vaughan, 71, an expert in European law, now lives with his second wife Leslie, 56, in North Kensington, West London. They have two children at university.

Mr Vaughan’s legal team said that a payment was unreasonable because his first wife was claiming that his pension pot should be included in assets available to her. The fund, which could yield £100,000 a year, was set up during the second marriage. Nicholas Mostyn, QC, representing Mr Vaughan, argued that it “would mean the second wife would be chipping in to the maintenance of the first”.

However, Lord Justice Wilson said: “In my view, the judge wrongly gave priority to the claims of the second wife.” He said that however substantial the contributions made by the second wife to the fund and whatever the extent to which it had built up during the second marriage, it was illogical to attribute one half of the pension income to the second wife.

In a statement after the hearing, Mrs Vaughan said that the original maintenance order had provided her with a “modest but vital income for life”. Her lawyers had told the court that her former husband had an income in “six figures”. She said: “He initiated this case to set aside that order, on the grounds that he no longer wished to pay. He refused to negotiate compensation and I found myself drawn into this against my will. I am relieved that finally justice has prevailed. Court orders and first wives cannot be swept aside at the whim of the rich and powerful.”

Mrs Vaughan originally claimed £560,000, then reduced this to £341,000. Her final award is to be paid by July.
 

Source: Times Online