Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
A day in the life Of...
Read on

ANCILLARY RELIEF: H v H (Lump Sum: Interest Payable) [2005] EWHC 1513 (Fam)

Date:16 JUN 2005

(Family Division; Baron J; 16 June 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 327

The judge made an ancillary relief order which provided for the immediate sale of the former matrimonial home and payment from the proceeds of sale of 2.4 million pounds to the wife on a specified date. In default of payment by the specified date, the former matrimonial home was to be sold. The order also provided that until payment of the lump sum, the husband was to pay periodical payments for the maintenance of the wife and children and the mortgage on the property where the wife was currently residing with the children. On the day the lump sum was specified to be paid, the husband issued a summons to extend the time limit for the payment of the lump sum. There was an agreement to delay the sale of the matrimonial home beyond the specified date. The wife sought interest on the outstanding lump sum until its payment in full. Baron J held that interest undoubtedly ran on the outstanding lump sum. However, the loss of the lump sum which the wife had suffered, which was to be calculated making allowance for the hypothetical cost of purchasing alternative accommodation, had been fully covered by the interim provision by the husband of periodical payments and mortgage instalments. The benefits the wife received before the payment of the lump sum were in reality far more than the equivalent interest which she would have received had she obtained the lump sum, properly calculated, on the due date. There should be no double counting. Per curiam: as a matter of practice and procedure, parties should always attempt to make arrangements for this type of hearing to be before the judge who dealt with the case.