Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
Debunking the myth about sensitivity in drug and alcohol testing
*** SPONSORED CONTENT***With all the news about deep fakes, authentication and transparency in the news at the moment, Cansford Laboratories Reporting Scientist Jayne Hazon has examined a recent...
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
View all articles
Authors

Drafting consent orders: Hamilton v Hamilton

Sep 29, 2018, 21:04 PM
Title : Drafting consent orders: Hamilton v Hamilton
Slug : Foreman-MayFLJ2013-616
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Apr 23, 2013, 09:30 AM
Article ID : 102287

Sarah Foreman, Solicitor, Vardags

Within family law there has developed an oft-used strategy when drafting consent orders upon divorce, in order to ensure that payments of lump sums are not capable of being varied further down the line. This tactic consists of labelling all lump sum payments individual lump sums, as opposed to a lump sum payable by instalments, and takes advantage of the wording of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which, prima facie, suggests that only the latter are capable of later variation. It enables the wealthier spouse to continue with his or her life without the worry that, should their fortune increase, the ex they thought they had severed ties with could return to haunt them and attempt to vary their settlement upwards. Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA Civ 13, [2013] 2 FLR (forthcoming)    is the first case in which the Court of Appeal has considered this principle and has been described by Mrs Justice Baron, who delivered the main judgment, as the 'paradigm case', which will clarify the law in this regard.  As well as providing a succinct and enlightening clarification of the law, Mrs Justice Baron conveys some invaluable advice on drafting, of which all family lawyers should be aware.

The full version of this article appears in the May 2013 issue of Family Law.  

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