Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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