2nd March 2010

The Court of Appeal in London has this week been hearing how a 66-year-old woman wishes to vary her financial settlement on divorce - 25 years after it was first ruled upon.

Philippa and David Vaughan were married in 1967 and divorced in 1985. At the time, the top barrister and leading authority on European Law was ordered to pay periodical payments of £27,000 a year to his ex-wife.

However, in 2009 Mrs Vaughan, a charity worker for an Indian art trust, took the case back to court seeking a £560,000 lump sum payment, saying that the maintenance awards were not adequate.

Deputy High Court Judge Richard Anelay QC not only dismissed the claim but ruled that the ex-wife's periodical payments should be halted.

Mrs Vaughan lives in a £1 million listed home in Hammersmith, West London and has received a £770,000 inheritance from her parents' estate. Her assets were valued at the time of the financial settlement variation hearing and it was calculated that she should have an annual income of £48,000.

Mr Vaughan's divorce lawyers argued that a single woman of Mrs Vaughan's age should be able to live comfortably on that sum and that her financial welfare should no longer be the responsibility of her ex-husband.

Mrs Vaughan's family law team is believed to be arguing that although she is worth around £1.7 million, this wealth consists of non-income providing assets which, unless she liquidates a large proportion of them, leaves her with a "totally inadequate" annual income of less than £23,000.

The appeal hearing into the variation of Mr and Mrs Vaughan's financial settlement on divorce is being heard by three top family law judges.