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
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...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

No Second Bite of the Cherry

Sep 29, 2018, 16:33 PM
Slug : no-second-bite-of-the-cherry
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 27, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85423

Dennis North, 70, appealed against a district judge's decision in 2006 to award a lump sum of £202,000 from his retirement fund to his ex-wife, Jean North, whom he divorced in 1978. Mrs North, 64, had left him and their three children for another man and the couple had come to a financial settlement which gave Mrs North a 'reasonable' lifestyle. When her finances took a turn for the worse, partly as a result of her own 'lifestyle choices' she returned to the county court to vary the terms of the original order. That was later upheld in the High Court. The Court of Appeal ruled on 25 July that the second award was 'fundamentally flawed'. Mrs North might still be due 'some modest award' from her former husband, but it would not approach the six-figure sum that she had previously been granted: 'The prodigal former wife cannot hope to turn to a former husband in pursuit of a legal remedy, whatever may be her hope that he might, out of charity, come to her rescue.' The Court stated that she might still be entitled to 'some modest award' which will be decided at the end of July. For further information see September [2007] Fam Law.

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