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
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
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Vaughan v Vaughan [2010] EWCA Civ 349

Sep 29, 2018, 17:51 PM
Slug : ancillary-relief-vaughan-v-vaughan-2010-ewca-civ-349
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 7, 2010, 07:10 AM
Article ID : 90867

(Court of Appeal; Wilson, Hughes and Patten LJJ; 31 March 2010)

The husband applied to terminate periodical payments he was ordered to pay his ex-wife in 1989.The wife cross-applied for a capitalised lump sum.  The wife had inherited capital since separation and was in a position to produce her own income without undue hardship. The High Court judge allowed the husband's application, attributing half of husband's current pension income to his second wife.

The case raised issues about the proper treatment of hypothetical claims of the second wife in assessment of any obligation on husband to continue to make periodical payments to a first wife.

Held that no priority to be given to claims of second wife. The wife was awarded a lump sum of £215,000 in lieu of periodical payments to provide an income of £46,000 per annum with any shortfall to be made up from her capital. Application of Pearce v Pearce principles. Consideration of circumstances in which a spouse to contribute capital to meet maintenance needs.

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