Keith Schiller, solicitor for Shan Lambert, who successfully claimed equal financial rights with her businessman husband, explains the possible implications for divorce settlements.

How significant is the principle behind this case?

It is very significant. The old law was discriminatory, because wives used to receive maintenance on divorce and they would have to justify their annual expenditure.

A very wealthy husband would multiply that by their life expectancy and give them a lump sum.

This case has said that is no longer necessary and that where three conditions are filled a wife can expect to receive half of the matrimonial assets.

Does the settlement mean that a wife who stays at home and looks after the children is equal in financial terms to the man who goes out to earn the money?

That is true, but it would be wrong to regard contributions as being limited to financial.

The court is saying that the role of the bread-winner is not to be given a higher value than that of the person who looks after the home and supports a highly ambitious husband in an extremely stressful job, in which he is working very long hours - which obviously increases the pressure on the wife.

How does this differ to previous divorce rulings?

It is quite a big departure. Throughout the last century, awards to the wife were very rarely in excess of 33% in big money cases.

This is the highest amount the higher courts have ever awarded.

What does this mean for similar cases in the future?

Provided it is a long marriage, provided there is surplus wealth and that the contributions are equal, we are likely to see most divorces these days being approached on the basis of equality.

At the other end of the financial scale, could men claim equality when women are awarded significant sums to care for children and the home after a divorce?

Much as they would probably like to claim equality, for those men at the other end of the scale, it is the children's interest which are really paramount. This is because the wife in a small money divorce will often have to retain the house because of the children.

In those cases she will often end up with more than 50%.

It is only in big money divorces where it seems there has been a ceiling on the amount wives can recover.