Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: K v K (Periodical Payments: Cohabitation) [2005] EWHC 2886 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:22 PM
Slug : k-v-k-periodical-payments-cohabitation-2005-ewhc-2886-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 16, 2005, 09:57 AM
Article ID : 86301

(Family Division; Coleridge J; 16 December 2005)

Under a consent order the wife was to receive continuing periodical payments at the rate of £16,000 index linked during joint lives or until the wife's remarriage. The husband applied for a downward variation, based on his own imminent 47% drop in income, but also on the wife's 3-year cohabitation.
The court must nowadays factor into its analysis and calculations not only numerically, but in principle, the existence of a lengthy and settled period of cohabitation and the likelihood of its continuing indefinitely. Whatever reduction was ordered, a wife must be entitled to a tapering off of the liability to allow her to acclimatise. There was no reason why nowadays the court should not order a termination on cohabitation after a certain period. It had been necessary in this case to review the overall financial picture of both households; parties cohabiting were required to be as financially open as married couples.

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