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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
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...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF/JURISDICTION: M v M [2008]

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : m-v-m-2008
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 11, 2008, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 84895

(Family Division; Bodey J; 11 July 2008)

In proceedings in which maintenance pending suit had actually been paid, pending a decision as to jurisdiction or merits, the court had no power to order such payments to be refunded should the payee fail at trial; in the alternative the court would not exercise any such power unless there was some special circumstance. By parity of reasoning, if maintenance pending suit had been unpaid in breach of an order, there was no question of its becoming unenforceable, nor of the order being discharged ab initio so as to eliminate the arrears, merely because of the wife's discontinuance or failure in the proceedings. Therefore, notwithstanding the wife's decision to discontinue her English divorce petition, after a Nigerian court had granted the husband a Nigerian divorce, the husband was still required to pay the wife the arrears of maintenance pending suit. The court had the power to enforce maintenance pending suit by way of a charging order; Wicks v Wicks was to do with the substantive powers of the court pending a decree nisi, not with the use of a charging order as a means of enforcement.

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