Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

APPEALS/ FINANCIAL ORDERS: N v N [2011] EWCA Civ 940

Sep 29, 2018, 17:48 PM
Slug : 2011EWCACiv940
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 18, 2011, 11:47 AM
Article ID : 95469

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Longmore and Stanley Burnton LJJ; 30 June 2011)

Financial proceedings became compromised at hearing. The parties recorded an agreement and understanding in recital to orders. The intention of the agreement was that the wife would become financially independent from husband. The wife was to keep husband informed of any increase to current income of £1,000pm or more. A periodical payments order was for fixed a term of 5 years, but left the wife free to make a further application which she did.  The district judge was required to make a range of findings: including a finding that the wife had made no serious attempt to ensure that her skills were up to date or relevant and was clearly unwilling to work. The husband was criticised for disclosure, but not for periods away from work, which was due to a depressive illness. The judge extended the term for about 16 months, but included s 28(1) restriction on any further application by the wife. Wife appealed.  Judge allowed appeal, extended term further for more than 3 years, and made joint lives order at nominal rate thereafter. Father appealed.

Appeal allowed. The judge had exceeded his function and failed to direct himself to the nature of the appellate process. He had based his decision on a view of the wife's financial situation that was fundamentally at variance with the findings of the district judge. The judge had been exercising independent discretion. The limited function of the circuit judge in hearing appeals from district judge should be recognised and honoured.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from