If she had not given up full-time work, she would now be earning up to £105,000-a-year and would be entitled to a generous final salary pension, it was claimed, but instead she is limited to working as a supply teacher.

Her lawyers also said her standard of accommodation was "far removed" from that which she enjoyed during the marriage.

Judge Rogers had decided that all she needed to buy a house was £450,000 but she had wanted considerably more, Mr Isaacs told the Court of Appeal.

"Her case was, 'why should I be relegated to a house that's far inferior to that which I lived in during the marriage and that which I had before the marriage?'” he said.

The court heard had been "independent with a good income" before the marriage and lived in a large home of her own, with stables and two acres of grounds, worth over £650,000.

"She sought a housing fund of £700,000," said Mr Isaacs. "It is submitted that, considered against the marital standard of living and subject to funds being available, that was not an unreasonable sum."