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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: BN v MA [2013] EWHC 4250 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:00 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-bn-v-ma-2013-ewhc-4250-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 6, 2014, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 104661

(Family Division, Mostyn J, 10 December 2013)

The husband and wife were both born in different countries. They had an 8-year-old son together. The relationship was turbulent and punctuated by periods of separation. During the relationship following their engagement they signed a premarital agreement providing for the level of financial support to be paid upon divorce.

When they separated the wife applied for maintenance pending suit under s 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and for interim periodical payments for the child who lived with her in Country S.

When adjudicating the question of maintenance pending suit where there was a prenuptial agreement, the court should seek to apply the terms of the agreement as closely and as practically as possible. Maintenance was ordered at the rate stipulated in the agreement of £24,000 pa per child. Against that sum credit was given to the value of the wife's occupation of a £3m property which was £1m more than the agreement provided and also to half of the household bills and service charges given the property was jointly owned. 

 

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