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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles

ANCILLARY RELIEF: H v H (Lump Sum: Interest Payable) [2005] EWHC 1513 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : h-v-h-lump-sum-interest-payable-2005-ewhc-1513-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 16, 2005, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88269

(Family Division; Baron J; 16 June 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 327

The judge made an ancillary relief order which provided for the immediate sale of the former matrimonial home and payment from the proceeds of sale of 2.4 million pounds to the wife on a specified date. In default of payment by the specified date, the former matrimonial home was to be sold. The order also provided that until payment of the lump sum, the husband was to pay periodical payments for the maintenance of the wife and children and the mortgage on the property where the wife was currently residing with the children. On the day the lump sum was specified to be paid, the husband issued a summons to extend the time limit for the payment of the lump sum. There was an agreement to delay the sale of the matrimonial home beyond the specified date. The wife sought interest on the outstanding lump sum until its payment in full. Baron J held that interest undoubtedly ran on the outstanding lump sum. However, the loss of the lump sum which the wife had suffered, which was to be calculated making allowance for the hypothetical cost of purchasing alternative accommodation, had been fully covered by the interim provision by the husband of periodical payments and mortgage instalments. The benefits the wife received before the payment of the lump sum were in reality far more than the equivalent interest which she would have received had she obtained the lump sum, properly calculated, on the due date. There should be no double counting. Per curiam: as a matter of practice and procedure, parties should always attempt to make arrangements for this type of hearing to be before the judge who dealt with the case.

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