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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
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...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL PROVISION: T v T [2006] EWCA Civ 734

Sep 29, 2018, 17:12 PM
Slug : t-v-t-2006-ewca-civ-734
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 15, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87421

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Smith LJJ and Hedley J; 15 May 2006) [2006] FLR (forthcoming)

By a consent order the father was liable to pay the school fees for the two children. Following a decline in the father's income, the mother's periodical payments order was reduced to a nominal sum, but the father later claimed that his financial circumstances had declined so much that the boys should go into the state system. The judge ordered the father to pay a lump sum to cover past and future school fees for both children to the end of their senior schooling. Fresh evidence was available on appeal of the father's serious health issues, which might impact upon his future income.

The lump sum had the great attraction of finality, eliminating the risk of future litigation between the parents, but the finality should not endeavour to reach beyond the reasonably predictable. The judge's order for a lump sum was upheld in relation to the arrears for both children, and in relation to the entire future fees for the elder child and the future fees for the second child at his current school. The father remained under a liability to pay for the school fees for the second child at senior school, but would not be required to make lump sum payment in respect to those fees, and his liability must remain flexible and subject to review in the light of circumstances.

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