ES News email The latest headlines in your inbox twice a day Monday - Friday plus breaking news updates Enter your email address Continue Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid You already have an account. Please log in Register with your social account or click here to log in I would like to receive lunchtime headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts, by email Update newsletter preferences

A judge has told the ex-wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon to get a job as she has no right to be “supported for life” by her former husband.

Lord Justice Pitchford told mother of two Tracey Wright, 51, that divorcees with children aged over seven should work for a living.

Leading divorce lawyers believe the ruling will have a significant impact on future big-money divorce cases.

Mrs Wright, a former riding instructor and legal secretary who lives with her younger daughter, 10, chose not to work when she and vet Ian Wright divorced in 2008 after 11 years of marriage.

Their £1.3 million seven-bedroom home was ordered to be sold and the proceeds split. Mrs Wright came away with a £450,000 mortgage-free house in Newmarket plus stabling for her horse and her daughters’ ponies.

Mr Wright, 59, was also ordered to pay her and the children £75,000 a year in maintenance and school fees.

Last year, he went to the High Court to seek a reduction in his bills, claiming that it was unfair to expect him to support his ex-wife indefinitely, even after he retires, while she made “no effort whatsoever to seek work”.

A family court judge told Mrs Wright to “just get on with it” and find a job, like “vast numbers of other women with children”. Now Lord Justice Pitchford in the Court of Appeal has rejected her challenge to the decision to slash her future maintenance.

Mr Wright runs an equine hospital in Newmarket that has carried out surgery on former Derby and Oaks winners. He and Mrs Wright separated in 2006.

As part of the divorce order, Mrs Wright got £33,200 a year for her personal upkeep. The court heard that Mr Wright made the payments but was worried that supporting his wife would be unaffordable after he retires at 65.

Judge Lynn Roberts last year agreed that there was no good reason why Mrs Wright had not done paid work since the divorce and criticised her for being “evasive” on her earning capacity.

She said: “I do not think the children will suffer if Mrs Wright has to work, and indeed a working mother at this stage of their lives may well provide them with a good role model. It is possible to find work that fits in with childcare responsibilities. I reject her other reasons relating to responsibilities for animals, or trees, or housekeeping.”

The judge ordered that her personal maintenance payments must cease, with a tailing-off over a five-year period leading up to Mr Wright’s retirement. Upholding Judge Roberts’s ruling, Lord Justice Pitchford confirmed that it is now “imperative that the wife go out to work and support herself”.

“The time had come to recognise that, at the time of his retirement, the husband should not be paying spousal maintenance.”

He added: “There is a general expectation that, once children are in year two, mothers can begin part-time work and make a financial contribution”.

Leading divorce lawyers believe the ruling will have a significant impact on future big money divorce cases.

Elizabeth Hicks, a partner and family law expert at Irwin Mitchell, said the decision was the latest “where single judges have made it plain that spousal maintenance is no longer a meal ticket for life. The fact that it is a decision on Appeal gives it greater weight.”

Ayesha Vardag, President of Vardags, said: “This reflects a shift in the zeitgeist towards mothers being expected to get back into the workplace after divorce.

“In a needs case, there's no gravy train for life. The reality is that parents work now, male and female, and everyone's supposed to pull their weight as soon as possible.

“Unless the family's swimming in millions, the luxury of the stay-at-home Mummy is fast being confined to history.”