Should staff be compelled to have the COVID-19 vaccine?
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment recently in Mills v Mills, a family law case involving maintenance costs. Stacey Nevin provided commentary to the press and was quoted in The Telegraph, The Times and Family Law Week.
"Today’s conclusion of the Mills v Mills saga will be disappointing to those who wanted to see the end of lifetime maintenance obligations. However it was a victory for Mr Mills as the Supreme Court found favour with his argument that he should not be required to meet the costs of Mrs Mills’ housing needs. In 2002 Mrs Mills had received liquid capital to allow her to purchase a mortgage free property, but a series of poor financial decisions saw her housing fund squandered elsewhere, leaving her in debt. She sought to increase her maintenance to support her housing needs now she was renting. Crucially, today’s Supreme Court decision means that Mr Mills does not need to bear the consequences of her poor financial decisions and appears to shut the door on spouses coming back for housing claims in the future when they have already been factored into a capital award. Financially weaker parties will be relieved to see that the notion of maintenance for life has survived its latest test, albeit today’s decision has not widened its scope.”
For further information see also Stacey's blog about the case: A partial victory for paying spouses, but maintenance for life lives on
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility