Barrister in divorce battle should not have second family airbrushed from history

By By Caroline Gammell Published: 11:50AM GMT 05 March 2010

David Vaughan leaves the high justice during his divorce box Photo: WILL WINTERCROSS

David Vaughan QC has been scored equally together to Leslie for twenty-four years and the integrate have dual grown up children.

His initial mother Philippa from whom he divorced with no young kids in 1985 is looking a �340,000 pile total to assistance compensate for renovations to her �1million home in west London.

Bankers mother drops explain for some-more income in credit break divorce Dustin Hoffman interview: Last Chance Harvey Businessmans mother fails in authorised conflict to enlarge divorce payout Paedophile art historian fails to win �500,000 divorce box Tory councillors mother led military to his gun accumulate

It is believed to be one of the oldest divorce upkeep cases to be brought prior to a British court.

Nicholas Mostyn QC, representing Mr Vaughan, pronounced majority of his 71-year-old clients resources was built up during his second marriage.

"To airbrush the second wife, and in truth the children, would have been, in the contribution of this case, utterly perverse," he said.

Referring to Mr Vaughans pension, he went on: "This is not a grant where the initial mother has toiled and spun, this is a grant where the second mother has toiled and spun."

Leslie Vaughan, 55, ready to go in a grey cloak and dim fit sat at the behind of the justice via the hearing.

Her husband, one of the nation"s heading authorities on European Law and a former part of of the Court of Appeal for Jersey and Guernsey, has an estimated resources of �5 million.

The initial Mrs Vaughan, 66, who right away functions for a charity, claims that the new termination of upkeep payments has left her confronting "undue hardship".

Under the conditions of their 1985 divorce, Mr Vaughan paid his ex-wife an annual total of �27,000.

At a conference last year, a district high justice decider ruled that these payments should be stopped and that Mrs Vaughans explain for a �560,000 pile total be rejected.

Judge Richard Anelay QC ruled that her resources that embody a �300,000 really old table and a �770,000 estate could yield her with a gentle annual income of �48,000.

Mrs Vaughan, who was on commercial operation in India so could not be in court, took her box to the Court of Appeal yesterday, claiming the judges statute was "plainly wrong".

Christopher Wagstaffe, her barrister, pronounced his customer was right away looking a pile total of �341,000 to assistance say her lifestyle.

"The man in the travel competence be very, really astounded at the idea that one needs �48,000 a year," he said.

"However, one cannot review this box with the standards of the man in the street. One has to review it with the standards enjoyed by this family.

"The word need is not an comprehensive term."

Mrs Vaughan claims that whilst she is value around �1.7 million, majority of her resources is scored equally up in non-income on condition that assets, and that unless she liquidates most of them, she will be left with a "totally inadequate" income of less than �23,000 per annum.

Mr Wagstaffe pronounced his customer had been told it would cost her �82,000 for "remedial work and decoration" on her listed property.

Mr Mostyn, who represented Sir Paul McCartney and Karen Parlour in their divorce proceedings, pronounced Mrs Vaughans attempts to remove some-more income gimlet "all the hallmarks of a late and destroyed gambit".

It is estimated the ex-couple have outlayed some-more than �200,000 on authorised bills and Mr Vaughan, who has suffered heart problems and a stroke, has abandoned healing recommendation to stop working.

The conference continues.