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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: Tattersall v Tattersall [2013] EWCA Civ 774

Sep 29, 2018, 21:10 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-tattersall-v-tattersall-2013-ewca-civ-774
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 17, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103123

(Court of Appeal, Hallett, Black LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley, 9 July 2013)

The husband and wife were married for 10 years and had a 3-year-old child. When they separated both parties were employed and they jointly owned five properties.

In financial remedy proceedings the judge ordered the husband to pay the wife periodical payments of £1,070 per month for both herself and the child, index-linked until the child commenced secondary school. The wife was awarded 70% of the matrimonial capital on the basis that she would be caring for the child and that the husband had a higher earning capacity at least for the foreseeable future. This would enable her to purchase a property to live in and to clear some of her debts. The husband appealed.

It was not wrong for the judge to determine that the husband had the capacity to, and had done so in the past, work longer hours in order to increase his earnings and provide for the family while the wife was restricted in terms of income by her responsibility for caring for the child, at least until she started school.

She had been entitled to start with the needs of the wife and child which could not be satisfied unless the wife had access to more than half of the family resources. This was in accordance with her duty under section 25(1) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which required that first consideration must be given to the welfare of any minor child of the family. The husband's needs had not been ignored and she satisfied herself that he could continue to live in his current accommodation and afford to pay his mortgage and other expenses from the income would have after making periodical payments if he reverted to his former working pattern.

The appeal was dismissed.


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