Duxbury
fund. The Duxbury Tables suggest this would generate £35,000 net per annum index linked for the rest of her life. She also has a valuable state pension in Luxembourg. It is therefore quite impossible to say that she cannot adjust without undue hardship to the termination of her maintenance. I recognise that this seems harsh given the very large sums she has been receiving. She calculated that the Husband would have earned £5.17 million if he had continued working to retirement in the UAE, of which she would have received £1.23 million. That will not now happen, although it was fortunate that he got the job in the first place as she has had generous provision over the last few years, estimated at approximately £700,000, which she simply would not have had if he had remained employed in Europe. In any event, the simple fact is that the goose that laid the golden egg is no more, with significant financial consequences for both parties.50.In one sense, these conclusions would suggest a termination of maintenance without any lump sum payment. There are, however, three further matters that I must consider. The first is arrears. The second is bonus provision. The third is the Luxembourg pension.51.I can deal with the arrears very briefly. The Husband accepted he did not pay the Wife the sum of £13,000 due to her from his earnings during the last three months of his contract in the UAE. Hudd DJ had made it abundantly clear that the order had to be complied with in full until it was varied or suspended. It had not been varied or suspended. The Husband must now pay these arrears. There will have been some modest additional arrears for the period since he commenced working for Colmore, namely the 25% of his net income. I have determined that he has no obligation to the Wife following his employment with his new employer. Those arrears will be remitted. 52.I next turn to bonus provision. At present, the Wife is entitled to 33.34% of the Husband’s bonus, although this figure reduces in stages to 20%. If his bonus was £6,500 per annum net, this would be £2,166 per annum. There is no question that this order must be discharged. It would be anathema to a clean break for it to continue and would be almost certain to generate yet further litigation. As the agreement provided for these payments, almost as a capital entitlement, I did wonder if I should, in some way, capitalise the entitlement. I have decided not to do so. First, I consider the quantum is uncertain. It would be very difficult, and potentially unfair, to reach any figure for capitalisation. Second, I have already determined that the Wife can adjust without undue hardship to the termination of her maintenance, which clearly includes this award. Third, I have found that the Wife has a valuable pension in Luxembourg, whereas the Husband has, essentially, lost his entitlement there, other than to a refund of contributions. It follows that I have come to the clear conclusion that the Wife should not be recompensed for the loss of the bonus sharing.53.Finally, there is the Luxembourg pension. The agreement provides that the Husband is to share whatever he gets relating to his pension earned between 1 August 1999 and 1 July 2013 with the Wife equally. He gave an undertaking to this effect. He cannot simply be released from this undertaking in the way I have dealt with the bonus. The agreement was clear and it relates to an asset earned during the marriage. I am clear, however, that I must deal with this in a way that ensures finality now. Ms Jones raised two reasons why that would be wrong. First, she disputed my jurisdiction to do so. She referred me to the case of