Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
View all articles
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from