Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
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....
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