Spousal maintenance variation

Divorced over three years ago and agreed a Consent Order where basically I got the house and spousal maintenance for 8 years (non extendable) and he got to keep his business. child maintenance for our three children is with CMS. Without even telling me, he sold his business and put the money (a very large amount!) into another business which isn't making much money as yet so he's applied for a downward variation. I've got a small job now and no mortgage so I'm pretty much self sufficient but I don't think he should get away with this. I consider the maintenance to be compensation for me not getting a share of the business. He's offered to capitalise the eight years at a very reduced rate but I think I should get the full amount (8 years x £xx). Advice so far is that it all hinges on whether he sold on purpose or not but his ex business partner is writing a statement and is willing to testify in court that he put my ex in such a position that he had no choice but to sell up. FDR is in the new year and I'm guessing the witness won't be at that one, but I've already decided I want to take this to a final hearing because I want what I think I'm entitled to and won't settle for any less.
What are the chances of me winning ? Afterall, all I want is what he agreed to in the consent order.

"Without even telling me" - Was he obliged to?

"I'm pretty much self sufficient" - Great, this is what the goal is.

"I consider the maintenance to be compensation for me" - That's not what anyone else considers maintenance to be. It's there so as you can become self sufficient again, which you have successfully achieved, after having been dependent on this person during the marriage.

You say you have a "small job" by this do you mean part time, could you not increase your own hours if you feel you would like to have more money.

Maintenance is always live as in either side can apply to increase, decrease or terminate it at any point so to say it was by consent is pretty meaningless if the situation has subsequently changed.

If you take it all the way to FH and lose you may be liable for both your own and his legal fees.

The problem is that the business was worth four times as much as the house so I only really got a quarter of the assets. The judge at FDR said it was fair because his asset was 'risky' and mine was 'solid'. I only agreed to it because of the hefty spousal maintenance payments and it seems he can might get away without paying it now.
We're talking big money here. At £1000 per month over 8 years id get £96,000 and the cheeky ex wants to pay me off with £40,000 on the basis that's all he's got left after reinvesting most of his money in his new business. When he's paid his mortgage and bills there's nothing left over but I just can't see how he can be allowed to get away with this.
I feel I have to fight it all the way because it's what we both consented to and it's sealed by the court.

There is a difference between capital and maintenance. I understand how you have calculated this in your head and I would probably have done the same but the reality is maintenance can be varied at any time if either of your situations change.

You should follow the legal advice you have paid for but as I'm sure you are aware there won't be any refunds if they are wrong.

You could put in a counter offer for capitalisation of say £80k - £90k which would be the figure minus legal fees, both your time, effort, stress and you could invest the cash now rather than have it over the next 8 years and £1000 p/m today due to inflation is more like £900 p/m unless it's already linked.

"I feel I have to fight it all the way because it's what we both consented to and it's sealed by the court." - I would probably feel the same but in reality if you can figure out another way both your lives will be better for it.

Can you not take the 40k now as the next 40 months payments, and then in 3 and a bit years time, the business might be more successful and take the rest then?

SM is based upon need of the recipient and ability to pay of the person paying.

Looks like your need is now less and his ability to pay has diminished.

Probably be a good idea to get some advise from a solicitor who has all the facts before you consider going to a final hearing based just on what you feel you are entitled to or you may end up liable for his costs.

It would seem unlikely that he has deliberately invested in a poorly performing business just to reduce his liability. It's not the same as just giving up work and claiming no income.

I'm convinced he sold up his business and bought one which isn't making much profit just out of spite because he doesn't want to pay the maintenance. The problem is, how do I prove this in court ? What evidence would I need or will the judge just take my word for it ?
Having a smaller lump sum for now and lower payments isn't an option for either of us as it gets very messy legally.
He did offer to meet half way between our two offers to finalise things and I've been advised to accept this but I just can't. I want what I'm entitled to and nothing less. Solicitors are also talking about no lump sum at all and a hefty downward variation which is what he has applied for. Surely this can't be right ? Like I said, he consented to paying the maintenance so he should be made to pay it and now because of this, I want it in a lump sum up front. He hasn't got the funds to pay this lump sum to me in his bank account because he's invested it in a business. Surely the court can order him to sell the new business to free up the capital and pay me off ?
Sorry if I sound greedy but I'm only asking for what he agreed to pay me.
What are my chances at final hearing ?