A travel boss's ex wife handed nearly £10million in the divorce has lost a bid to boost the payment her £175,000 yearly maintenance payment by £23,000.

Top judges at London's Appeal Court dismissed Kim Waggott's claims for more money and ruled the annual payments should stop in 2021.

Multimillionaire accountant William Waggott, 54, was ordered to give Kim Waggott, 49,of Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, the huge sum in cash and assets after they split in 2012.

After a hearing in 2014 the finance director at TUI travel was also ordered to pay the mammoth personal maintenance payment for their rest of the lives.

She claimed the maintenance package was not generous enough, and her lawyers argued that the payments should be increased by £23,000 a year.

Kim Waggott (left) lost her bid for more cash and had her maintenance payments stopped after losing a court battle with her ex William Waggott (right)

But Mr Waggott protested that the original ruling was wrong and meant that his former wife had no 'financial incentive' to get back to work.

Now Lord Justice Moylan, at London's Appeal Court, dismissed her claim for more cash, and ordered the maintenance payments to stop in three years' time, granting him a 'clean break' from his ex.

He said that Mrs Waggott will not suffer 'undue hardship' and can get a job is she needs more money.

The Court of Appeal's landmark decision could mean that wealthy bread winners will not have to share their post-divorce earnings with their poorer ex-spouses.

Lord Justice Moylan, sitting with Sir James Munby and Mr Justice MacDonald, heard that the couple were married for 21 years and had one daughter before splitting in 2012.

Mr Waggott now lives in this £1.9m farm near St Albans with his new partner

They lived in a 'very substantial' £4.3m property near Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire.

Post-split, Mrs Waggott, 49, former finance controller of UCI cinemas, used her £9.76m share of the 'fruits' of the marriage to buy a £2m home near Chester and a holiday home in Majorca.

Mr Waggott moved into a £1.9m farm near St Albans 'with another lady,' the Court of Appeal was told by Mrs Waggott's lawyers.

Nigel Dyer QC, for the husband, argued that the maintenance order should be ended in two years' time and that Mrs Waggott should get back to work and start supporting herself.

'How long should an order based on sharing last for? When does the meter stop ticking?' he asked the judges.

'It is unfair to expect the husband to continue working long hours in demanding employment and not expect the wife to realise her earning potential as soon as is reasonably practicable,' he added.

Mrs Waggott however claimed the maintenance package was not generous enough and her barrister, James Turner QC, asked for her payments to be increased by £23,000 a year.

Allowing the husband's appeal today, Lord Justice Moylan said: 'The expression 'meal ticket for life' can be used as an unfair trope.

'I, of course, acknowledge that long-term maintenance can be required as part of a fair outcome (in a divorce.)

'But it is plain to me that the wife would be able to adjust without undue hardship to the termination of maintenance,' added the judge.

What does the judgement mean for wealthy divorcing couples? The Court of Appeal's landmark decision could mean that wealthy bread winners will not have to share their post-divorce earnings with their poorer ex-spouses. Kim Waggott's barrister, James Turner QC, argued her ex-husband's earning capacity had been built up during the marriage and represented a matrimonial asset to which the equal sharing principle applied. He claimed that, on top of her £9.76 million payout, she should get a 35% share of Mr Waggott's work bonuses for five years after the divorce and that her £175,000 annual maintenance should be increased to £190,000. But, in a decision that is bound to affect many other divorce case, Lord Justice Moylan ruled that Mr Waggott's future earning capacity is not capable of being a matrimonial asset and he is not obliged to share it. Advertisement

Lord Justice Moylan said that the wife would be able to make up the 'shortfall' created by the loss of the maintenance payments by investing £950,000 - roughly 10% - of her massive payout and living off the interest.

Her lawyers had argued that she ought not to have to invest any part of her payout to create an income for herself.

But the judge said that, if the money produced by the investment was not enough to meet her financial needs, 'the wife would be able to obtain employment' from next year.

'I appreciate that the husband may well have continued to generate a very substantial income and that his financial position will have been enhanced as a result,' he added, but went on to allow his appeal and order that the maintenance payments stop in March 2021.

Throwing out the wife's bid for more cash, the judge added: 'It will be clear from what I have said above that the wife's appeal from the judge's decision not to award her more of the husband's post-separation income by application of the sharing principle fails.

'Any extension of the sharing principle to post separation earnings would fundamentally undermine the court's ability to effect a clean break,' he said.

'I reject Mr Turner's more extreme argument that the wife's capital, apart from her housing needs, should be preserved and should not be used in any way to meet her income needs.

'This again would conflict with the clean break principle,' he concluded.

As well as losing her financial support from her ex, Mrs Waggott will also now face a massive legal costs bill, bound to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.