LAST year Melissa Miller was awarded a £5 million divorce settlement after a three-year marriage. Her former husband, Alan, recently lost his appeal against the decision.

At first sight this looks a good deal for Mrs Miller. Even the Court of Appeal admitted that this is at the top end of awards. But it could be that Mr Miller has had a lucky escape. Hard as it is to think that someone with £5 million to her name may feel hard done by, in the future Mrs Miller may feel that she could have had a fairer share of their wealth.

The judge described Mr Miller as “an exceptionally successful fund manager”. During the marriage his financial assets increased by about £20 million, on top of his existing wealth. The judge gave Mrs Miller a £2.3 million house and cash of £2.7 million, but took away her share in another house worth £500,000. It is not clear what percentage this is of Mr Miller’s overall wealth. Interestingly, Mrs Miller did not receive any of Mr Miller ’s shares. If he does have the Midas touch, then she may regret not sharing in this future wealth.

The Court of Appeal decided that Mrs Miller was justified in expecting that Mr Miller keep her in the lifestyle to which she had become accustomed but has not allowed her a look-in at the lifestyle she and Mr Miller may well have expected. Other wives, who had been married longer, have been given shares but, of course, that means they also share the risk that the shares lose value. Although Mrs Miller may be pleased to have property and capital with no risk, given Mr Miller’s track record in the City it could be argued that the risk is fairly low.

Could Mrs Miller have got more? Since the case of Mr and Mrs White in 2000, a long marriage means a starting point of 50 per cent on divorce. But there is a debate about how far this should go — is 50 per cent appropriate at the end of a ten-year marriage? What about a one-year marriage? Clearly Mrs Miller got nowhere near 50 per cent.

It is a cliché that in the divorce courts there are no winners. Even if Mrs Miller has a good financial deal, her life, and that of Mr Miller, has been changed irrevocably. The court decided that their behaviour during the marriage was relevant to the financial outcome and therefore intimate details of their marriage are now public knowledge. They also have to deal with the emotional distress caused by the end of the relationship.

So what can be done to prevent this type of fallout? Although premarital agreements are not legally binding, they are influential and can provide certainty for couples. Using the collaborative law process, they can sit around a table and decide what they would like to happen if they separate, instead of a judge deciding for them. While some people may regard them as unromantic, if a couple can be open enough to discuss their financial plans and wishes for the future, maybe they will also be able to negotiate the path of marriage. The hope is that they will never need their premarital agreement and will not become the next Mr and Mrs Miller.

The author is an accredited specialist family and collaborative lawyer at Cumberland Ellis in London

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure