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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
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...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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