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...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 19:23 PM
Slug : LvL15082011
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 25, 2012, 11:23 AM
Article ID : 97749

(Family Division; Eleanor King J; 15 August 2011)

The husband appealed against a financial order in divorce proceedings. The husband and wife had two children aged 12 and 9 and shared care arrangements. The combined assets of £3.4m included both parties' homes (the wife owned a farm and surrounding land) and the husband's business premises which were worth £3.3m but only equity of £450,000.

The husband had to pay £41,000 pa interest and capital repayments of £161,000 pa. The wife was a well known fashion designer, and her business premises in London cost £40,000 per annum in rent with modest profits. The husband was a GP with his own business offering private medical services. The wife sought a lump sum payment of £100,000 and joint lives' maintenance of £60,000 (excluding school fees). The district judge ordered a lump sum of £35,000 to the wife in account of tools of the wife that  the husband had taken without permission, global periodical payments of £47,500 for wife and children on a joint lives basis and the husband was to pay the school fees.

The husband appealed on the basis that the judge had failed to take account of current and likely future income, the fact that the wife would have a greater share of the capital and failed to consider a deferred clean break.  Allowing the appeal and substituting the order for periodical payments of £30,000. The judge had erred in failing to make findings as to income and needs of both parties and to assess the ability of the husband to afford the payments.  There was evidence that the wife would become self sufficient in the future which justified fixing the periodical payments order for a term of 2 years and 5 months.

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