By ROBERT VERKAIK in London
The former wife of premiership footballer Ray Parlour has been awarded more than £4 million ($11.3 million) in a landmark divorce ruling that grants women the right to a share of their husband's future earnings.
Karen Parlour, who was married to the Arsenal midfield star for four years, was told by a judge that her role in her husband's career deserved greater financial recognition.
The Court of Appeal ordered Parlour to pay his ex-wife a third of his £1.2 million annual income and £1 million legal costs.
Karen Parlour will receive a personal maintenance allowance of £406,500 - to be reviewed after four years, as well as two mortgage-free houses worth more than £1 million and a £250,000 lump sum. Parlour must also pay £12,500 a year for each of his children aged 8, 6 and 4.
Matrimonial law experts said yesterday that the "revolutionary" case would allow wives to continue to receive large shares of their husband's earnings long after the couple had divorced.
It also reflects a legal trend which recognises the value of the wife's domestic contribution in the overall financial success of the partnership.
After the judgment Karen Parlour, 33, said she was "very relieved at the outcome of the appeal and the settlement agreed".
Parlour, 31, met his wife when he was 17, before he emerged as one of the country's most promising midfielders. He went on to win 10 caps for England.
Karen Parlour told the court she gave up her job as an optician's assistant to devote herself to the relationship and bringing up the couple's three children.
She said that before the arrival of manager Arsene Wenger at Arsenal in 1996 there was a considerable "laddish" drinking culture among certain players, including her husband and former Arsenal and England captain Tony Adams.
She realised this was the way to "ruin and unhappiness", took a grip on the situation and encouraged him to move away from that lifestyle.
He had also frittered money away on gambling, she claimed. He had, in the past, publicly praised her for bringing him "back from the brink".
But Parlour, who has a child with a new girlfriend, was and is a drinker, her lawyers claimed.
Parlour's legal team countered that his wife's contribution to his success on the pitch was not part of a "joint enterprise" asset.
"He is the one who performs the labour," said Nicholas Francis, QC. "He is the one who submits to Arsene Wenger's regime of behaviour and abstinence. He is the one who risks injury to his hamstring or whatever."
Karen Parlour first asked for £440,000 a year in maintenance but Parlour, who no longer commands a regular place in the Arsenal team, argued that £120,000 was enough.
That was increased to £250,000 in January by a High Court Family Division judge who described the offer as "thoroughly mean and unfair".
Yesterday the Court of Appeal rejected the footballer's argument and decided to increase her maintenance again.
Three judges had been asked to rule 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 to reflect the vital input of the other partner to the marriage.
Karen Parlour accepted that because her relationship with the premiership star lasted only seven years she could not claim the full 50 per cent.
The court's willingness to consider the value of the couple's once close relationship to Parlour's successful career as a footballer is in line with recent House of Lords rulings on the division of the capital after the collapse of a marriage.
In a landmark judgment in October 2000 the House of Lords awarded Pamela White 41 per cent of her husband's wealth, or £1.5 million, to account for her role during their 33-year marriage.
White claimed she had contributed to her husband's success, sharing the job of farming, and should receive financial recompense.
The trend was confirmed in May 2001 when the Court of Appeal increased a divorce settlement for Jacqueline Cowan, 61, wife of a binliner tycoon, to £4.4 million.
The court and the House of Lords said her husband should keep 62 per cent because of the "special skill and efforts" he had shown.
In most divorce cases, a wife's entitlement to annual payments is based on her reasonable needs.
Yesterday's judgment applies the principle of equality in the division of assets to a spouse's income.
The Parlours' case was being heard together with a similar claim by the wife of a high-earning accountant.
But Lord Justice Thorpe stressed that the two cases were "far removed from any norm".
It was only the huge excess of income over need that had led to disputes between the parties, who had otherwise divided their matrimonial assets equally by agreement.
- INDEPENDENT
Ex-wife gets third of future pay
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.