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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
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...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Q v Q (Ancillary relief: Periodical Payments) [2005] EWHC 402 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:34 PM
Slug : q-v-q-ancillary-relief-periodical-payments-2005-ewhc-402-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 18, 2005, 11:16 AM
Article ID : 88455

(18 March 2005; Bennett J; Family Division) [2005] 2 FLR 640

Making a periodical payments order of 40% of the husband's income, for an extendable term of 4 years, the judge noted that the accumulated fruits of past shared endeavours had been determined in the division of capital. The periodical payments order was designed to provide a step, or bridge, to the anticipated clean break. It was not right in this case to make the husband bear the burden of effectively maintaining the wife for their joint lives; the 4 year periodical payments order and the capital division together should leave the wife with assets, including the home, of over 2.5 million, which was a fair and just result.

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