Lord Wilson of Culworth: “Many divorced wives deserve a meal ticket for life”

Coram Chambers posted on their website without further commentary or analysis:

“In a speech to students at the University of Bristol, Lord Wilson of Culworth reminded those listening that, in certain cases, it would be unrealistic to expect ex-wives to adjust without long-term, on-going maintenance payments from their ex-husbands. Whereas in Scotland, which has a three-year cut-off point for maintenance payments, judges in England and Wales have flexibility and discretion under the MCA 1973. Lord Wilson gave the example of an older ex-wife, “The trouble is that it is usually unrealistic to tell a wife, left on her own perhaps at age 60 after a long marriage, that, following payments for, say, three years, she must fend for herself”.

These extra-judicial comments are particularly notable give the private member’s bill recently tabled by Baroness Deech, a cross-bench peer, seeking to introduce a three-year cap on most maintenance payments. The bill has now passed its second reading in the House of Lords.


Lord Wilson‘s thinking and lack of intellectual ability to present issues carefully can be seen in his statement: “The trouble is that it is usually unrealistic to tell a wife, left on her own perhaps at age 60 after a long marriage, that, following payments for, say, three years, she must fend for herself”.

Baroness Deech is known to be a supporter of marriages and a management failure for IVF rules and procedures in the UK. Bias is the key to her thinking.

So, let’s analyse the current law on divorce and marriage statistics of the older generation:

  1. The law on financial division is highly controversial and depends on each Judge and who the party is being represented by (solicitors / barristers names are very important to the Judges as these could be future Judges or already are ex-Judges).
  2. Although a Judge issues a court order, it does not mean that such court order will be carried out by the party required to make a payment: be it for life or just 3 years.
  3. Looking at the older generation, now getting divorced at the advanced age of 60 as stated above, it is highly likely that the woman is younger (if not by much) than the man, as the norm was before parties engaged in what Lord Wilson called “a long marriage”. This is important as the man may already be retired or about the retire with a good, minimum or no pension. In this case maintenance payments are set on the amount received by the man at the time the order is to be made be it on his salary or pension payments.
  4.  At the retired age, the man is allowed by law to capitalise the maintenance payments reducing substantially the payments to the wife. The wife at age of 60 would most likely live to be no more than 75 years of age (if at all given the UK statistics), therefore capitalising maintenance payments to that age.
  5. An order for maintenance is in most cases given at the high end so that the parties can engage further in litigation to reduce the maintenance payments and then capitalise. It’s the game!
  6. The questions remain: Why did Lord Wilson choose to discriminate based on sex? Why did he not mention an equal division for the parties of their assets, with a slightly more provision for the wife (if the wife is to have a lesser pension)? Why put older parties to the slavery of this unfit justice system which requires the investment of significant time, money and effort to fight for justice?
  7. The Judge has jurisdiction to make a shared pension order provision with a penal notice attached to it. However, it is unlikely that Judges have a good understanding of the pension laws in this country and how such implementation must be carried out.
  8. The problem is that the more division of matrimonial assets (including pension sharing) are made by the Judge the higher the likelihood is that there will be more litigation and refusal to obey the court orders. This is how the Judges turn parties against each other. Women are most likely to suffer from the decisions of the Judges who protect and encourage males to turn against their wives and behave in such a way as to make their wives’ life harder.

There are a number of issues with Lord Wilson’s sexist statement.

The other side of the coin missed by Lord Wilson in his delusional statement:

What if it was the man who needed more financial support as he refused to disclose truly and honestly all his assets and earnings, and wanted to move on to much younger women?  This can be seen in divorces among older people given the social pressure and lack of families values which make up the norm in the British society. The Judges are not concerned with the truth, but rather with the speed for carrying out the legal procedure and favours given to the legal representatives.

What if the man was a gold digger who stayed in the marriage for the privilege of a good life, financial support and to accumulate years of marriage to obtain a good divorce settlement, yet he was the abuser in the marriage?  This can be seem more often nowadays in London among to wealthier divorces. We will bring you a very interesting case under the case section on this website.


Lord Wilson is known not to be the sharpest Judge among the Judiciaries. In his own words, on his achievements he has failed. He is indeed the most corrupt Judge of the 21st Century.

Read other delusional statements to the public of Lord Wilson. Click here.

Return to Lord Wilson’s profile. Click here.