HIGH earners have been warned that their former husbands or wives could pursue them for bigger divorce settlements after two landmark cases earlier this year.

Lawyers say they are being inundated with calls from former clients wondering if they can get more money out of their wealthy exes following the Miller and McFarlane cases in the House of Lords — and the answer is often yes.

Melissa Miller walked away from her marriage of less than three years with £5m of her husband Alan’s £30m fortune.

Julia McFarlane, meanwhile, was awarded maintenance of £250,000 a year for life after a 26-year marriage. The case was ground-breaking because it introduced the concept of “compensating” the wife for sacrificing her career: McFarlane had given up her job as a solicitor to raise three children.

The judgments were expected to have a big impact on future divorce settlements, but lawyers have been surprised by the surge of interest in “post-divorce settlement reviews”, where the parties go back to court to haggle over the size of the award.

John Nicholson at Hughes Fowler Carruthers, a law firm, said: “The McFarlane case, which introduced the idea of compensation for loss of earnings, has definitely encouraged more people to reassess their maintenance settlements. I would think some people will be able to claim a big increase in their payments.”

Two out of five first marriages and seven in ten second marriages end in divorce. Payouts to the financially weaker party — usually the wife — have soared in recent years. It is hardly surprising, then, that many people who divorced before these landmark awards feel they got a raw deal.

There are limits on post-divorce settlement reviews, however. One-off lump sums, such as that awarded to Miller, cannot be changed after the event. Annual maintenance payments, which often rise in line with inflation, can usually be reviewed, though.

Nicholson said: “It has always been possible for divorced couples to reassess their maintenance settlement. It’s just that more of them are doing it now in the wake of a number of high-profile cases.”

There are no guarantees, but a review is more likely to provide the financially weaker party with an increased payout if the other person has received a pay rise or become wealthier since the divorce.

Even if there is no change in circumstances, the principles laid down in the McFarlane case could lead to a bigger award in a post-divorce settlement — although this has not been tested in court.

Nicholson said: “Nobody really knows what approach the courts will take to cases of this kind as we are still waiting for a post-Miller and McFarlane test case. The result will also depend on the judge or judges involved.”

Before the McFarlane case, maintenance payments were based primarily on the needs of the financially weaker party, but the judge said there should be an additional payment to compensate someone who had sacrificed a career. Her maintenance award was extended from five years to a lifetime as a result.