Not-So-Cheap-Thrills: Sia Faces Costly Spousal Maintenance Claim

In March 2025, popstar Sia (full name Sia Furler) filed for divorce from her husband, Daniel Bernad, after approximately three years of marriage. Now, he is seeking more than $250,000 (£187,000) per month in spousal maintenance. 

Bernad, a former doctor, has said in US court documents that he needs the monthly allowance to maintain the “luxurious and upper-class lifestyle” he had enjoyed during the marriage - think private jets, five-star holidays, household staff - the works. According to him, their monthly expenses were more than $400,000, which were funded entirely by Sia. He says that, with no job and complete financial dependence on her, he needs the support to re-train and practice again as a doctor. 

Spousal maintenance is frequently a source of contention in divorce proceedings, both in quantum and term. Whilst the US courts will determine Bernad’s claim, how would the English courts approach it?

Spousal maintenance is not automatic - it is awarded only if a party ‘needs’ it, and if would be ‘fair’ to do so. These concepts are broad, and the court exercises a wide discretion in applying these concepts. The court will consider the parties’ needs, resources, obligations, ages, health, and the standard of living during the marriage – the latter being the focus of Bernad’s argument. 

The lifestyle and level of expenditure enjoyed during the marriage are therefore relevant, and the courts would be sympathetic to the financially weaker party’s need for support, particularly where that party was wholly reliant on the other party for that lifestyle. 

However, the courts have moved away from “lifestyle matching” on an open-ended basis. In the past, it was not unusual to see spousal maintenance orders being made for life (known as “joint lives orders”), ending only on a party’s death or the recipient’s remarriage. However, the modern approach prioritises a transition to financial independence, as soon as possible, thus making “term orders” (i.e. for a specific length of time) more prevalent. 

In terms of how much should be paid, the standard of living during the marriage is not determinative. It is seen only as a reference point, as opposed to a guarantee or a ceiling – which is a point Sia’s lawyers are likely to make to knock down the eye-watering sum that Bernad seeks. The courts will now closely scrutinise the budgets put forward by applicants, focusing on what they actually reasonably need, as opposed to what they want or are used to. In addition, the court takes into account the applicant’s earning capacity, expecting them to maximise this within a specific time frame. 

In light of these balancing factors, there is little doubt that Daniel Bernad has a reasonable claim for spousal maintenance against Sia. However, the term and quantum of such maintenance requires greater analysis, particularly in light of the level sought by him. Given that they had a short marriage (three years), are both relatively young (late 40s), and Bernad is a former doctor with the ability to earn an income and transition to independence after a period of retraining, these are all reasons to potentially reduce the term and quantum awarded to him. The court will need to balance these facts against the unique standard of living enjoyed by the couple during the marriage.