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

Drafting consent orders: Hamilton v Hamilton

Sep 29, 2018, 21:04 PM
Slug : Foreman-MayFLJ2013-616
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : 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