A MOTHER has been told to get a job and stop living off her divorce settlement in a legal precedent that could affect others expecting a “meal ticket for life” when they split from their partners.

When UK millionaire racehorse vet Ian Wright and his wife Tracey divorced in 2008 after 11 years of marriage the couple sold and split the proceeds from their AU$2.6 million home.

Mr Wright, now 59 years old, was also ordered to pay his ex-wife AU$148,000 a year in maintenance and school fees for their daughter. Half of that figure was deemed as Mrs Wright’s “personal upkeep”.

media_camera Renowned equine vet ... Ian Wright has argued in court that he would not be able to afford the maintenance payments he makes to his ex-wife. Picture: Newmarket Equine Hospital / Webgrab media_camera Broken bonds ... equine vet Ian Wright pays his ex-wife $148,000 a year, with half deemed for her “personal upkeep”. Picture: ThinkStock

But the vet, owner of the acclaimed Newmarket Equine Hospital in Suffolk, applied to the court for a reduction on the grounds he would not be able to afford the maintenance after he retired aged 65 and his riding instructor and legal secretary ex-wife, from the village of Wickhambrook, had made no attempt to find work after they divorced.

Ian Wright's Newmarket Equine Hospital

DIVORCE: The craziest of reasons given

DIVORCE: The staggering cost to Australia’s economy

A court agreed with him and yesterday the Appeals Court rejected Mrs Wright’s challenge to the decision to slash the maintenance in a decision family law experts say will set a precedent for other cases.

Appeals’ Lord Judge Pitchford said it was time for the 51-year-old ex-wife to get a job and “support herself” as any mother with a child over seven years could do.

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

“There is a general expectation that once children are in Year 2, mothers can begin part-time work and make a financial contribution.”

He added the initial divorce order was never intended to provide the wife with an “income for life”.

COMMENT BELOW: Should ex partners of wealthy spouses try and get a job?

Earlier Family Court Judge Lynn Roberts was more blunt, saying there was no good reason why Mrs Wright, who is caring for their 10-year-old daughter while a second daughter was in boarding school, hasn’t looked for work and she should “just get on with it”

“The world of work has innumerable possibilities these day ... vast numbers of women with children just get on with it and Mrs Wright should have done as well,” 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.”

Lawyers for Mrs Wright had argued that any cut to maintenance would cause a “plummeting standard of living” for the 10-year-old child.

Family law expert Elizabeth Hicks told the British press the fact the case was lost in the Appeals Court gave it more weight and it would not be clear “spousal maintenance is no longer a meal ticket for life”.

Originally published as Divorced mum told to get a job