Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

‘Murphy’s law’: are term orders appropriate? (£)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:35 PM
Murphy v Murphy [2014] EWHC 2263 (Fam), family law, adult periodical payments orders, safeguarding financial position
The recent High Court decision in Murphy v Murphy [2014] EWHC 2263 (Fam), [2014] Fam Law 1520 provides an important restatement of the statutory framework and case-law concerning the term of adult periodical payments orders.
Slug : murphy-s-law-are-term-orders-appropriate
Meta Title : ‘Murphy’s law’: are term orders appropriate?
Meta Keywords : Murphy v Murphy [2014] EWHC 2263 (Fam), family law, adult periodical payments orders, safeguarding financial position
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 7, 2015, 11:10 AM
Article ID : 108171

The recent High Court decision in Murphy v Murphy [2014] EWHC 2263 (Fam), [2014] Fam Law 1520 provides an important restatement of the statutory framework and case-law concerning the term of adult periodical payments orders. This decision stresses the importance of safeguarding the financial position of the weaker party. The lower courts in the last several years have drawn back from making joint lives periodical payments orders. Terms are often made on the basis of arbitrary assessment of a wife/mother’s future earning capacity. Husbands have sought to argue that this development in the law is appropriate and that the days of joint lives orders should now end (or be orders made sparingly). Baroness Deech presented a Private Member’s Bill to the House of Lords in 2014 which stresses the desirability of term maintenance orders and a clean break – a Bill which sought to radically change the law. In an important restatement of the law relating to the term of adult periodical payments orders, Holman J in Murphy firmly sets out the principles that should apply, stating that, ‘the law currently is not the law as it would be if Baroness Deech’s Bill is ever enacted. It is, of course, the current law which I must apply.’

The full version of this article appears in the January 2015 issue of Family Law.

For details on how you can subscribe to Family Law or for any offers, please contact a member of our sales team: Tel 0117 918 1555, or email:sales.manager@jordanpublishing.co.uk
Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Family_Law
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from