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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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