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
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...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Hamilton v Hamilton [2013] EWCA Civ 13

Sep 29, 2018, 18:40 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-hamilton-v-hamilton-2013-ewca-civ-13
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 29, 2013, 10:20 AM
Article ID : 101507

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Kitchin LJJ, Baron J, 24 January 2013)

Following divorce a judge ordered that the wife pay the husband a lump sum of £450,000. However, while the wife paid sum of the money due there still remained £210,000 outstanding. The wife claimed she no longer had the means to pay due to the dramatic decline in her business which went into administration.

The husband brought enforcement proceedings while the wife issued proceedings under s 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 seeking a variation of the original order. The judge permitted the wife's application and granted her an extension of time in which to pay the remaining sums. The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal found that the judge had been wrong to conclude that under s 23(1)(c) of the MCA 1973 any order for the payment of lump sums over time was an order for a lump sum by installments. Although the judge misdirected herself on the meaning of s 23(1)(c) she was entitled to hold that the case fell within s23(3). The section was widely drafted and provided scope to vary a lump sum and therefore it stood to reason that the power would also apply to timing. She had been well within her discretion to vary as to the timing of payment taking into consideration the needs of the wife and children who lived with her. 

 

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