Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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