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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

The law relating to needs and spousal maintenance: one firm’s view

Sep 29, 2018, 21:00 PM
Slug : Marshall-MarchFLJ2013
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 25, 2013, 01:30 AM
Article ID : 101679

Emily Marshall, PSL, London

Kelvin Henderson, Associate, Sheffield

Alison Hawes, Partner, Bristol

John Nicholson, Partner, London

On behalf of the family law team at Irwin Mitchell:

In financial remedy proceedings, statute requires the court to have regard to the party's 'financial needs', but does not define 'needs', nor tell us the extent to which a party should be required to meet the other party's needs after divorce.

In its recent Supplemental Consultation Paper on needs and spousal maintenance, the Law Commission commented that in the absence of a clear definition of 'needs', a family judge has as much guidance as a bus driver who is given instructions about how to drive and authority to decide whether to turn left or right, but not told where to go.

This article outlines the broad views of the family team at Irwin Mitchell on the issues raised by the Law Commission relating to needs and spousal maintenance.

Irwin Mitchell examines whether 'compensation for loss' or 'unravelling the merger over time' should be favoured as a theoretical basis for spousal support. Irwin Mitchell also considers whether the law should place time limits on support to encourage independence.

Most notably, Irwin Mitchell provides its comments on the most controversial of the Law Commission's suggestions - that English law could adopt a formula for the calculation of spousal maintenance.

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


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