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...
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


Sep 29, 2018, 17:21 PM
Slug : lauder-v-lauder
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 21, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89403

(Family Division; Baron J; 21 March 2007)

The parties were married for over 20 years. In a pre-White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 financial settlement the wife was awarded about 26% of the net assets, plus periodical payments for joint lives of 35% of the husband's net income (£8,000 pa). Unusually, the order was put into suspension: the parties agreed that instead the wife would remain in the matrimonial home, with the children, with the husband paying for the upkeep of the property and about £50 a week towards the wife's needs, supplementing her modest income as a secretary. Over 15 years later, the property was sold, and the wife received £414,000 from the proceeds. The wife subsequently sought an upward variation of the periodical payments order, and capitalisation of the award. The district judge found that the husband was now worth no less than £4.5 million, with a net income of £200,000 pa; the wife was worth £487,900, made up for the most part of her home and an income of only £9,120 (without any periodical payments). The annual needs of the parties were similar, at about £45,000 net each. The wife was 70 years old, in poor health; the husband was 68. The district judge awarded the wife periodical payments of £40,000 pa, to be capitalised at £500,000.

Allowing the wife's appeal and awarding the wife a lump sum for termination of the periodical payments of £725,000, the judge considered that the proper approach to this type of application was to apply the precise terms of the statute in the light of the factual matrix and to give proper consideration to the recent guidance given by the House of Lords in the case of Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186 (Miller). The figure of £40,000 pa was plainly too low, given that the wife's needs had to be 'generously interpreted' and that, post Miller, the court also had to take into account the wife's right to an element of compensation. There could be little doubt that the length of the marriage and her age at separation put the wife at a severe disadvantage in the labour market. The fact that the original award had given the wife a high proportion of the husband's net income was not solely determinative in percentage terms, but was a relevant circumstance as one of the background factors. An income of about £60,000 under a Duxbury type of calculation represented about 30% of the husband's net spendable income, which was in line with what was originally agreed, and was fair given both the husband's additional work since separation and the wife's needs and rights to compensation. The award contained no element for sharing the husband's wealth, because the capital claims had already been dealt with. Notwithstanding the Duxbury paradox, Duxbury had been adopted as the starting point, as a tool to assist with the fair outcome.

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