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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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