Law, but not for teachers

Times OnlineI'm not sure how relevant this is to the vast majority of divorcing couples, but when a divorce case makes the front page of The Times, I feel obliged to mention it. This is, of course, yet another big-money case (I wish the courts would give some guidance on how to deal with the 'ordinary' cases most of us deal with most of the time), and suggests that wives of high earners cannot always expect to receive a share of their husband's future earnings for life, contrary to what appeared to be the case in the recent decision in Miller and McFarlane.

What struck me was the following quote from the judgement of Mr Justice Charles:

This is not a case in which the wife gave up a career that was likely to provide substantial income or monetary reward. She was a teacher.

I can't decide whether this says something about judges, the teaching profession, or both.

Comments