When does the meter stop ticking?' asks millionaire as his ex-wife who received £9m in divorce plus £175,000 a year goes to court five years later to get bigger slice of his FUTURE earnings

  • Travel firm finance chief was ordered to pay his wife £9million in divorce deal
  • He is also paying her £175,000-a-year maintenance for life in the settlement
  • The husband is appealing to settlement, saying she should go back to work
  • But she insists she supported him in his lucrative career and should get more?

A director of travel firm TUI who was ordered to pay his ex-wife huge maintenance payments for life by a divorce court is now battling to force her back to work.

Multi-millionaire accountant William Waggott, 54, was ordered to give his ex-wife Kim Waggott £9million in cash and assets after they split in 2012.

The money allowed her to buy a £2million home in Cheshire and a holiday villa in Mallorca and she also gets £175,000-a-year personal maintenance for life.

Kim Waggott received a £9million divorce settlement in 2012 from her ex husband William
Financial director William Waggott is contesting the terms of his £9million divorce from his ex-wife Kim

Financial director William Waggott, right, is contesting the terms of his £9million divorce from his ex-wife Kim, left, after she was awarded £9 million in cash and assets in 2012

Mr Waggott lives in this home near St Albans in Hertfordshire with his new partner

Mr Waggott lives in this home near St Albans in Hertfordshire with his new partner

But Mr Waggott says the order, made by a divorce judge in 2014, was unfair and means his wife - who is also an accountant - has 'no financial incentive' to get back to work.

A hearing in London's Family Court was told the couple were married for 21 years and had one daughter. They lived in a 'very substantial' £4.3m property near Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire before splitting in 2012.

After the split, Mrs Waggott, 49, former finance controller of UCI cinemas, used her £9.14m share of the 'fruits' of the marriage to buy a £2m home near Chester and a Balearic holiday home.

Mr Waggott meanwhile moved into a £1.9m farm near St Albans 'with another lady', the Court of Appeal was told by Mrs Waggott's lawyers.

Three senior judges at the Court of Appeal are considering whether to end the £175,000-a-year?maintenance payments his ex-wife receives. She is claiming she deserves more

Three senior judges at the Court of Appeal are considering whether to end the £175,000-a-year?maintenance payments his ex-wife receives. She is claiming she deserves more

Nigel Dyer QC, for the husband, argued that the maintenance order should be ended in two years' time and that Mrs Waggott should get back to work and start supporting herself.

'How long should an order based on sharing last for? When does the meter stop ticking?' he asked the judges.

'It is unfair to expect the husband to continue working long hours in demanding employment and not expect the wife to realise her earning potential as soon as is reasonably practicable,' he added.

'The order gave the wife an unduly soft landing... moreover it provided no financial incentive or clear timetable for the wife to return to the job market,' the barrister went on.

Mr?Waggott says the current divorce settlement gives his wife no incentive to go back to work

Mr?Waggott says the current divorce settlement gives his wife no incentive to go back to work

'The longer the wife leaves it the harder it will become. She has a working life ahead of her at least 12 years.

'Given time, re-training and application, the wife could revive her career and obtain a well-paid job using her accountancy skills.

'The wife has significant capital resources, which must make the case for a clean-break even more compelling, if not irrefutable,' said Mr Dyer.

Mrs Waggott however claims she did not get enough from the financial package and wants her yearly payments increased by £23,000.

Her lawyer James Turner QC argued that she is entitled to an ongoing share of her husband's earnings, as she helped him build his career by supporting him and the family on the home front.

He told the court the question of whether she is in financial 'need' is irrelevant, and urged the judges to concentrate instead on the issue of 'fairness.'

He said: 'A wife in her position, who has supported the husband through the early stages of a career during a 21-year relationship, should be entitled to a share of the fruits of that career, irrespective of 'need' in the conventional sense.

The hearing, before judges Sir James Munby, Lord Justice Moylan and Mr Justice MacDonald,?continues.

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.