Sometimes it pays not to be in a hurry, or at least that’s what a woman’s lawyers are saying in a lawsuit in England. Here’s the backstory. Carol Williams moved out of the family farmhouse in Chesham, after 22 years of marriage and four children.

In November, 2000, she won a divorce from her husband, John Williams, who owned Jencon’s Scientific, the largest supplier of laboratory equipment in the UK.

She said in the divorce papers that she wanted to end a difficult marriage and that her husband was “controlling and overbearing." Her attorneys say she was eager to get on with things, and “make a clean break.”

And clean it was, with a settlement of $2.4 million.

So why is demanding another $2.8 million?

The surprise is that it’s not from her husband. That bird has flown.

She’s demanding it from her lawyers, Thompson Leatherdale of Reading, UK, and Nicholas Francis, Queen’s Counsel, for negligence, for not informing her that the customs of allotting alimony or spousal support were about to change, big time, especially for high net worth couples.

What she said she didn’t know was that a case called White v. White was decided on in the House of Lords in October of 2000. And that case laid down a new philosophy that changed support in the wife’s favor.

Before White v. White, a husband in the UK was expected, after many years of marriage, to pay a reasonable amount for his ex-wife’s upkeep.

Any money he had beyond that was his to keep.

But White v White established the precedent of dividing the bounty between husband and wife, beyond the bare necessities of life. Or as lawyers would put it, “where the marital assets exceed the financial needs of both parties, the surplus should not belong solely to the husband.”

And with John Williams, there was surplus indeed. His equipment company was bringing in more than $46 million a year.

White v. White was decided two months after she and her husband had reached a settlement, but a month before she signed the final divorce decree. Her lawyers should have informed her not only that there was a case being decided in high court, but what exactly that case might mean.

She says that if she had waited until after White v. White, she would have gotten $6 million. She told the court: "I didn't know there was a case in the House of Lords, otherwise I would have waited."

She also said, "I knew I should have got more."

In order to bring this lawsuit, with lawyers costs in the half a million dollar range, she said she had had to mortgage her house.

The lawyers she is suing, who represented her in the divorce, say there is no way they could have known what would be decided in White v. White.

The case is now under consideration by the British High Court.

Unfortunately, one additional fact can’t be brought into evidence.

In April, her ex-husband sold his company to an American lab supply company, VWR International.

In an SEC filing, VWR revealed that it financed the purchase with borrowings of $32.8 million.

So if Carol Williams had waited not just a couple of months, but eight more years, all of that money would have been in play.

Sometimes, after 22 years, it pays to put up with what you feel is a “controlling and overbearing” husband for just a little bit longer.