Forget bitter divorce battles with wives seeking multimillion-pound maintenance awards for themselves and their progeny — the latest arena for dispute could be a couple’s animals after a landmark ruling in which a wife has been awarded £50,000 a year in maintenance, just for the upkeep of her three horses.

The award, part of a £1.5 million divorce package, was approved by three appeal judges after they heard that the horses were a key part of the woman’s life and she was devoted to them. The judges also ruled that the woman should be given a lump sum of £900,000 by her husband, an investment banker, so that she could buy a house with sufficient land to graze the horses.

The couple, who lived in Gloucestershire and are not identified, had been married for 11 years and had no children. The horses, the judges heard, were almost a child substitute for the wife who was a talented rider, spending much of her time eventing.

Sir Mark Potter, Britain’s most senior family judge, said: “During the marriage the horses played a major part in the wife’s life with the consent and encouragement of the husband.” This was “all the more so after she lost a baby in 2001 and the husband gave her a third horse (a foal) to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary in 2004, to add to her own two horses which she had bought herself for £20,000 out of a personal inheritance in order to justify her eventing.”

The husband had argued on the break-up of the marriage that the horses were an unjustified extravagance and that the wife’s needs could be met by buying a house for £600,000 that had no facilities to keep horses. She could keep one horse that could be put out to livery.

But the appeal judges upheld the original award by District Judge Michael Segal in the county court last May that the wife’s talent with — and love for — horses had been a prominent feature of the couple’s lives. They approved his original maintenance package of £80,000 a year, including £50,000 for the horses, as well as some £900,000 for a house. Lawyers said that the decision could set a precedent, with divorcing wives or husbands claiming maintenance for other animal interests.

Barbara Simpson, head of family law at the law firm Boodle Hatfield and a deputy district judge in the family courts, said the ruling was unusual and that the decision had implications that went beyond keeping horses. “One could easily envisage a scenario where, for example, the wife had a particular interest in breeding spaniels and entered them in local dog shows. If there was enough money in the divorce pot, it is not inconceivable that she would be awarded money in order to buy a property with kennels or maintenance to cover the costs of the vet’s bills or doggy treats.”

The couple were married in 1994 and separated in 2005, with a decree nisi pronounced in January 2006.

They had joint assets of £3 million. On marrying, the wife had given up part-time work in a financial company to undertake interior decorating and part-time book-keeping.

Meanwhile, the husband worked in the City on a salary of £60,000, plus bonuses.

In the original ruling, Judge Segal said: “In any event, the wife does not want a 9-to-5 job, because this would not give her enough time with her horses. I am not qualified to say whether or not it is because she has no children that she is so devoted to her horses.”

The wife said: “Horses are my family. I see them every day. You form a very close bond with horses.”

Mr Justice Potter upheld the district judge’s ruling and said that providing the husband remained in the City “with an income to match”, then “it was not right to expect the wife to work full-time so she was left with no time for her horses or her eventing”, which both agreed had been a major feature of their lives.

Case notes

— Heather Mills was denied £39,000 for wine and £30,000 for equestrian activities in her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney. The judge pointed out that she did not ride or drink alcohol

— Wendy Haines secured a £500,000 matrimonial home in 2005 by agreeing to receive 5p a year in maintenance

— Alexandra Ella lost part of her husband’s fortune last year when a British court upheld a prenuptial agreement that any divorce be heard by a rabbinical court in Israel

— Melissa Miller was awarded £5 million after a marriage that lasted less than three years when the law lords said that she had married with “reasonable expectation” of a wealthy lifestyle

Source: Times archives

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones