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


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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from