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...
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

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: T v M [2013] EWHC 1585 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:08 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-t-v-m-2013-ewhc-1585-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 18, 2013, 09:58 AM
Article ID : 102877

(Family Division, Coleridge J, 23 April 2013)

The husband and wife were married for 16 years and had three children together, two of which were over 18 and the youngest was 12. Since separating both parties had formed new relationships.

In financial remedy proceedings the wife was awarded periodical payments of €7,250 per month plus 35% of the husband's net bonus to the extent that her overall maintenance entitlement did not exceed €192,000 per annum. In addition the husband was to pay child maintenance of €1000 per month plus school fees and tertiary education fees. No appeal was brought but 4 months later the husband sought to vary the order. The wife sought to strike out the application on the basis that it had no chance of success. The application was struck out and the husband appealed.

The husband claimed that the wife was earning significantly more than she disclosed in the original proceedings and that if a full investigation took place the court would be driven to the conclusion that a downwards variation of the order was required. The husband relied on the fact that the wife was able to relieve him of his mortgage obligation on the matrimonial property which was €1.5m which would necessitate a high income level.

The appeal was dismissed. It was impossible for the husband to succeed in establishing that the judge was plainly wrong in finding that no useful purpose would be served by re-opening the matter. The judge was perfectly entitled, having looked at the matter carefully, to come to the conclusion that to allow an application to vary, to go ahead, issued only 4 months after the original order, was one which was fraught with difficulties so far as the husband was concerned and, as it were, almost in his own interests, and certainly in the parties' interests, it should not be allowed to proceed.


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