Last updated on March 7th, 2017 at 11:08 am

Needs in divorce are relative

Judges historically talked about needs as being ‘reasonable requirements’.  More recent case law says needs are to be ‘generously interpreted’.  So it isn’t just about meeting the bare essentials; it’s about a comprehensive budget that includes an allowance for clothing, holidays, entertainment, presents and so on.  What is clear is that financial needs are relative.

Legal advice highly recommended

In a divorce case, each spouse is required to provide a list of their current and anticipated income needs and these lists are crucial pieces of evidence in the case.  It is therefore very important to get the content right first time and legal advice is highly recommended.  Clients often forget about items of expenditure which aren’t regularly paid e.g. by monthly direct debit.  Whilst it’s important to be thorough, it’s also important not to ‘overegg it’, as the opponent’s legal team will scrutinise each item of expenditure and challenge anything considered excessive or untrue.  If the court finds that a party has exaggerated their income needs, this could damage their credibility as a whole when dealing with other aspects of the case.

No one size fits all for needs in divorce

The very fact that each family is so different means it’s impossible to predict an outcome or come up with a formula as there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution.   This means that lawyers will continue to scrutinise and argue about their respective clients’ needs when dividing up the matrimonial pot and assessing any maintenance requirements on divorce.

The court’s assessment of needs has very recently been in the spotlight in the high profile case of ex-model Christina Estrada and Saudi Arabian businessman Walid Juffali.

Even the super rich don’t always get what they want!

Their family home (occupied by wife and child) was described as a ‘vast and prestigious’ property set in 33 acres of land adjoining Windsor Great Park in Surrey, with tennis courts, horse stables, a helipad, fountains and live-in staff including grounds-men, gardeners and a 24-hour security team.  The family owned several additional properties including in Saudi, California and a luxurious iceberg chalet in Switzerland.  The husband’s London home included a media room, pool room, juice bar, gym, plant room, treatment room, spa, sauna and steam room.  The wife told the court “it is difficult to convey the extraordinary level of luxury and opulence we were fortunate enough to enjoy.  It was one that, because of the sheer expense required to maintain it, is only open to a very small number of families, even within the global ultra-wealthy”.  Her annual budget included £12,000 for a Christmas tree and seasonal decorations, £2 million for holidays, £1 million for clothes & jewellery, £126,000 for beauty treatments & products, £335,000 for staff costs, £50,000 for Christmas lunch and the same for her own and her daughter’s birthday parties, £21,000 for theatres and shows, £28,000 for Wimbledon tickets, £18,000 for a box at Ascot and £10,000 to attend Elton John’s White Tie Ball.   Many of her items were challenged by the husband as excessive to real need even in the context of the ultra-wealthy.  Whilst the wife claimed her housing need was £60 million, Mrs Justice Roberts found that £18 million should suffice and said “it will not be on the same scale as the entertaining she has done before but a claim anchored to needs cannot, in my judgment, ever justify unbridled spending, whatever the marital standard of living.”  The judge also found her lifestyle costs excessive and considered the words of Baroness Hale about the need to structure a financial order so as to reflect a ‘gentle transition from the marital standard of living to that which she could expect as a self-sufficient woman’.  For all the criticisms, Christina Estrada still managed to secure a total divorce settlement of £75 million which included a cash payment from her husband of £53 million and £22 million of other properties/assets).  Her claim, however, had been pitched at £238 million, so she got less than a third of what she’d asked for. But it wasn’t a bad outcome really, was it Christina?

You can find out more about financial settlements on divorce on our web pages.  Contact us now if you need help dealing with the financial issues surrounding your divorce.