The Supreme Court has granted permission to the husband to appeal in this highly publicized case.
Following divorce in 2002, the parties' financial claims were settled by a consent order which provided the wife with a capital sum and required the husband to make periodical payments to her. In 2014, the "husband" applied to discharge/ reduce the periodical payments, stating that the "wife" had lost the capital sum through gross financial mismanagement and she was in a position to increase her earnings. The judge held that the order should continue without any variation. The wife appealed/ sought an increase. The Supreme Court has now granted permission for husband to appeal - ie having provided for wife's housing costs in the original capital sum did the Court of Appeal err in taking these into account when raising her periodical payments?