Parlour must pay ex-wife a third of future income

Premiership football star Ray Parlour was today ordered to hand over a third of his future income to his ex-wife Karen – for the next four years at least.

In a ground-breaking legal victory the Court of Appeal held that the part she played in his success entitled her to a “reasonable” share of what he earns as a result – currently around £1.2m (€1.8m) a year.

Today’s decision by three judges will mean that more people will want to make pre-nuptial agreements, according to one divorce expert.

The judges awarded Mrs Parlour £406,500-a-year (€609,578) for herself, plus £12,500 (€18,745) for each of her three children, representing around 37% of the Arsenal midfielder’s income.

The award was in addition to a divorce settlement under which Mrs Parlour, 33, was given two mortgage-free houses worth more than £1m (€1.5m) and a £250,000 (€374,930) lump sum.

Parlour, 31, had offered his ex-wife £120,000 (€180,013), including the children’s maintenance, but this was increased to £250,000 (€375,026) in January by a High Court Family Division judge who described the offer as “thoroughly mean and unfair”.

Today, the appeal judges ruled that even this was not enough in the context of a high-earning husband whose income hugely exceeded the family’s needs.

The court heard that, as well as running the home and caring for the children, Mrs Parlour persuaded her husband to “grow up” and drop the hard-drinking “laddish” culture that existed among certain Arsenal players.

The former optician’s assistant from Romford, Essex, had said that, before the arrival of manager Arsene Wenger at Arsenal in 1996, there was considerable drinking among certain players, including her husband.

She realised this was the way to “ruin and unhappiness” and she took a grip on the situation and encouraged him to move away from that lifestyle.

Today’s judgment in her favour recognised that the player’s income would “plummet” in his mid-30s and that she would therefore be under an obligation to save a substantial sum, put at £294,000-a-year (€440,987), from her maintenance over the next four years to provide for the future.

Emma Hatley, a partner and divorce expert at the City law firm Withers, said: “It is certainly going to have a significant impact on people’s attitudes towards divorce, and therefore marriage and I am sure this will be another reason why more people will want to do pre-nuptial agreements.”

Lords Justices Thorpe, Latham and Wall rejected argument that, in principle, the post-divorce income of a high-earning spouse should be split 50-50 in the same way as other matrimonial assets.

But they said that, where a husband’s income was far more than both needed to live on, the principle of fairness applied.

They stressed that such cases were “far removed from the norm” and their decision would not affect divorce settlements generally, which would continue to be assessed on the needs of the parties.

The judges also ruled out the idea that annual payments should continue “for life”.

They said that, even though a “clean break” ending all financial commitments might not be possible immediately after a divorce, it was always something to be aimed at. In the Parlours’ case, the prospects of a clean break would be reviewed after four years.

The Parlours’ marriage was dissolved in 2002 after seven years.