Unfortunately for her, she lived on the same street as her former in-laws.
She admitted her pregnancy and that she was “in a fixed, committed relationship” that was permanent in nature.
(At which point I can imagine her legal team fiddling with ties, looking intently at blank bits of paper and staring, stony-faced, into the distance!
) Insufficient information was produced about Mr Thompson’s financial position for the court to make an overall determination about the case, so they allowed Mr Grey’s appeal on the basis that Mr Thompson and Mrs Grey were cohabiting.
Grey v Grey This case involved a wealthy couple in their thirties, whose 10-year marriage had produced one daughter.
When they divorced the capital was divided equally between them, and the judge set Mrs Grey’s maintenance at more than £100,000 per annum.
The husband subsequently appealed this award, on the basis of his ex-wife’s relationship with a man called Mr Thompson.
The wife hotly contested the claim that she was cohabiting.
In my previous post I set the scene in a hotly disputed area of law: maintenance payments and the ex-husband who resents paying after his former partner begins living with another man.
The Court of Appeal has issued a judgement (Grey v Grey (2009EWCA Civ1424)) that should help to resolve this grey area, even though it will mean wives who choose to cohabit could stand to lose their maintenance.
Put starkly, in line with changing social attitudes the pendulum has swung away from dependent wives.
They may now be faced with very tough choices post-divorce: do they live with someone, or keep their maintenance?