"After all, that is what money is for".
After meeting housing and other costs, the wife would have around £2.1m in capital, and Mr Justice Mostyn's order assumed she would amortise all of this to meet her income needs.
The flexible approach can be criticised for creating uncertainty, which makes it more difficult for disputes to be settled through negotiated agreement.
However, Mr Justice Mostyn's approach in CB v KB is also problematic.
His assertion that spending "is what money is for" does not reflect the reality of the wealthy couples considered in these cases, who do not live hand-to-mouth, for whom capital represents financial security and the ability to assist future generations.
It ignores the different roles most people accord to capital and income.
It would also appear inconsistent with Court of Appeal authority.
Discrimination
Further it is questionable whether Mr Justice Mostyn's approach avoids the discrimination described in White, between homemaker and breadwinner.
The approach in White was explained by reference to society's increasing awareness that a breadwinner's success may have been made possible, or enhanced, by the homemaker's non-financial contributions to the family, and to society's increasing recognition that the homemaker will often have made these contributions at the cost of losing the opportunity to develop her own earning capacity.
If, following divorce, a wife has to use her share of the matrimonial assets to meet her income needs, but the husband's share continues to grow as he meets his income needs through the earning capacity he developed, supported by the wife, during the marriage, then it would not seem that the discrimination with which White was concerned has been avoided.
On the other hand, it has been clearly established that a wife has no right to share in her former husband's earning capacity.
Articulating a fair approach to the division of assets on divorce which avoids discrimination will continue to challenge the family court.
The question of amortisation of matrimonial assets is a tricky aspect of that question, and it remains to be seen whether the judgment in CB v KB is indicative of a new judicial attitude, or if the flexible approach will continue to prevail.
Richard Kershaw is a partner at Hunters Law
