Divorcees don’t need to afford lifestyle they were accustomed to in marriage, Court of Appeal judge says as he rules against ex-wife Katriona MacFarlane

Our thanks to Mike P for some rare good news from the justice system. An extract:

Katriona MacFarlane claimed that she had not been awarded enough to buy a home similar to the £1million country cottage she shared with Dr James MacFarlane, 74.

The 58-year-old also claimed she was owed compensation for “abandoning” her teaching career to be “looked after” by the millionaire.

You have to laugh at the notion of giving up work as ‘abandoning’ or ‘sacrificing’ a career. I imagine many men would be delighted to ‘abandon’ their careers in exchange for the prospect of being ‘looked after’ by a millionairess, but the latter always seem to be in short supply. Most of the demand for prenuptial agreements comes from well-off women, because money must never flow from women to men. No, that would be totally the wrong sort of equality.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Slowcoach

    This item strongly suggests this is a sea change that is under way rather than just a one off random outcome variation…

    “This is yet another example of the judiciary taking an increasingly pragmatic approach towards resolving these types of problems”
    John Hooper, of John Hooper & Co

    Well, one might hope so but one swallow does not make a summer, and we shall see!

    • William Gruff

      ‘ … one swallow does not make a summer, and we shall see‘ … ‘

      Yes indeed. That notwithstanding, the woman will undoubtedly appeal to the Supreme Court, which tends to find in favour of women, whether they are in the right or the wrong.

      • Mike Buchanan

        Indeed so. The first recognition of a prenup in a British court was that of a German heiress, Katrin Radmacher, to protect her fortune from her much poorer French husband. 2009, from memory. I covered the case in my international bestseller, ‘The Marriage Delusion: the fraud of the rings?’

      • William Gruff

        By contrast, a female judge in the same court wanted to find in favour of a man, against a pre-nup, because, she said, most appellants in future pre-nup cases were likely to be women and so women were more likely to lose out if she found, with the other eleven judges, all men, in favour of the wife in accordance with contract law.

        The case was one of a number that were featured in a documentary about the Supreme Court. That body is ideologically corrupt and really needs to be abolished. We did all right for hundreds of years without one.

  • Marty

    So proud that this judge acted on the basis of reason and not the gentleman’s code.
    We need all men to act in this way nowadays, unfortunately. Women have forced us to it.

  • Rob

    This concerns me a little, because I’m contesting against my wife that I had to give up my career when we moved country for her own career. On top of which becoming the primary carer of a our disabled child had rendered further employment not possible for many years

    I’m all for not letting someone have some luxurious lifestyle at the cost of the other party, but I believe that the divorce courts make the point about fairness and balance in allowing both parties a reasonable standard of living comparable to what they previously had.I know the reality is that its often us men who get shafted over this.

    In the case above its obvious that one party made little or no contribution to the marriage( you got to ask, why didn’t she take advantage of the support and do something like education, business etc that you could not always do whilst working?), but I have a feeling it going to be used to deny further support( what little there is) for the men who get shafted.