I have posted a Blog before referring to the Myerson case where the credit crunch apparently caused a--roughly--£8million change in the amount the husband expected to get after paying out his ex wife.
The Court has just decided that this is not enough of a change to justify altering the original Court Order.
It seems that the main basis of this decision was that it was always the case he would keep his shares in his company and he still will, albeit it seems to be worth £millions less than when that decision had been made.
Is this a fair decision?
Maybe it is, but I doubt the result now is what the result would be if it was decided today. But if the Court had allowed this appeal against a financial settlement, it would have been submerged beneath massive numbers of appeals against Orders from last year and before where the relevant values had been altered by the credit crunch.
Maybe the Divorce Court took an impressively practical decision for once?!