Uncertainty about the outcomes of big-money divorce cases in England and Wales has increased after a court yesterday ordered a divorcee to pay her ex-husband £5 million (around $7.7 million) to cover losses from the credit crunch, a move suggesting that courts should take a longer view when trying to carve up assets, solicitors at Mills & Reeve say.

Elena Bowers Marano, an American heiress, was ordered by the Court of Appeal to pay the sum after she had challenged an earlier court ruling that ordered her to pay this sum to property developer Peter Marano. Mr Marano saw the value of his investments collapse by more than £80 million while their divorce proceedings were ongoing during the recession.

“This is the latest in a series of judgements surrounding big money divorce cases, and the problem with all of them is that opposing sides can usually latch onto something that supports their particular argument. Hence, dividing asset values during the credit crunch has only intensified what is the biggest period of uncertainty in divorce law for 30 years,” said Nigel Shepherd, a family law partner at Mills & Reeve.

“The interesting thing to note in this case is the contrast between what happens when financial disaster strikes before or after a settlement. In the Myerson divorce the court ruled that it would be unfair to revisit the terms of the original settlement as it had all been agreed before the credit crunch started, whereas in this case financial disaster struck whilst the Maranos were still going through the process and it was therefore fair to order Mrs Marano to make this extra payment,” he said.

“Hence the key question to ask is whether it would be appropriate for the courts to take a longer term view of values when reaching a decision on the division of matrimonial assets whilst we are in the midst of a prolonged economic blip,” he said.

Media reports said Mrs Marano is to retain the £13 million former marital home in Belgravia while her former spouse keeps a nearby £4.4 million mews house together with a Sardinian holiday home and yacht, it said.

Mrs Marano's lawyers told the Court of Appeal that a court ruling last year was wrong to have relied on a snapshot valuation of Laurel's developments because property values had improved from their March 2009 low, according to the Financial Times. They also argued that Mrs Marano had injected $15million of her family money into matrimonial assets before the case was heard.