‘A wife who lost the bulk of her divorce settlement by making “poor financial decisions” has been awarded larger monthly payments from her ex-husband despite calls from his lawyer for maintenance limits to reflect “social change”.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th February 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP, analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during August 2016.’
Family Law Week, 9th September 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Edward Heaton, Principal Associate and Jane Booth, Associate, both of Mills & Reeve LLP, analyse the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during May 2016.’
Family Law Week, 3rd June 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Arguments concerning the indexation of periodical payments orders triggered many more cases than usual being tried out after 2005 on numerous heads of damage. Further cases followed after the issue of indexation was decided, leading to the landmark decision in Whiten (2011). In late 2014/2015 there has been a further spate of reported cases driven by the NHS LA. James Rowley QC brings together the judgments so that trends in awards in the most serious litigation can be identified.’
Byrom Street Chambers, 24th May 2016
Source: www.byromstreet.com
‘The Court of Appeal recently decided a discreet argument regarding periodical payments orders in the case of Aburn v Aburn [2016] EWCA Civ 72. So, what are the implications for automatic variations in periodical payments? Practitioners and Judges alike will be familiar with the concept of stepped periodical payments. However, the commonplace order will be for periodical payments to be stepped downwards based upon either particular trigger events (such as children reaching their majority, a payment of a lump sum order) or after a specific period of time during which it is judged that the recipient of the periodical payments can, or ought to, have taken steps to increase their earning capacity. Given the commonplace nature of these orders, it is perhaps understandable that a deputy district judge (DDJ) presiding over the final hearing of the financial remedies application of Mrs Aburn (and then a Circuit Judge hearing the appeal thereafter) thought perhaps an order “stepping up” periodical payments upon a particular trigger event was a clever solution, thereby falling into what we now know was an error of law and an impermissible exercise of his judicial discretion. ‘
Tanfield Chambers, 1st March 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘S 8 of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991) circumscribes the role of the courts in deciding child maintenance. This act trumps the provisions in the MCA 1973 and Children Act 1989 s 15 / Schedule l save in certain circumstances (e.g. where an existing maintenance order has been made less than one year earlier – s 4 (10) (aa) CSA 1991). The combined effect of s10 CSA 1991 and § 3 (1) of the Child Support (Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2645) is that from the effective date of a maintenance calculation made pursuant to CSA 1991, any existing court order ceases to have effect.’
Tanfield Chambers, 20th February 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Jessica Craigs, senior solicitor of Mills & Reeve LLP analyses the financial remedies and divorce news and cases from December 2014.’
Family Law Week, 23rd January 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
In re A (A Child) (Financial Provision) [2014] EWCA Civ 1577; [2014] WLR (D) 529
‘The “millionaire’s defence” survived to some degree when the court was determining the appropriate financial provision for the illegitimate child of a father of very great wealth. Accordingly it was not appropriate to contend for a “fair proportion” of the wealth when seeking to determine a sum representing the reasonable needs of the child for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.’
WLR Daily, 10th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Liz Cowell, principal lawyer with Slater & Gordon analyses the case law and trends emerging from case law regarding clean breaks and termination of spousal periodical payments orders.’
Family Law Week, 30th April 2014
Sorce: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Lois Rogers, solicitor at Vardags, and Lily Mottahedan, barrister at 1 Hare Court, examine the court’s treatment of bonuses in financial remedy claims in light of the recent decision of Mrs Justice Eleanor King in H v W [2014] EWHC 4105 (Fam) and pre-existing case law.’
Family Law Week, 17th April 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“Jessica Craigs, solicitor and David Salter, Joint Head of Family Law at Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the financial remedies and divorce news and cases published in June.”
Family Law Week, 8th July 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Follett v Wallace [2013] EWCA Civ 146, [2013] All ER (D) 57 (Mar) should give practitioners pause for thought. This was one of those tragic catastrophic injury claims where the victim was left with extensive life-long care needs. Neither liability nor quantum was disputed. Both parties were agreed to part of the claimant’s compensatory entitlement being paid under a periodical payments order (PPO).”
New Law Journal, 20th June 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“Gordon Exall look at the cases and principles relating to interim payments and accommodation in catastrophic injury cases.”
Zenith Chambers, 22nd October 2012
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal’s decision in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2010] 1 WLR 409 has profoundly affected the ability of claimants to secure adequate accommodation prior to a quantum trial or settlement. This aim of this talk is to consider how Eeles has been applied in subsequent first instance cases, and the lessons to be learned from them in preparing, evidencing and arguing heavy interim payment applications.”
Cloisters, 13th June 2012
Source: www.cloisters.com
“A prisoner who suffered catastrophic brain damage after he fell from an upper bunk bed during a seizure at London’s Brixton jail has been awarded a compensation package worth £4.7 million.”
The Independent, 14th April 2010
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Vaughan v Vaughan [2010] EWCA Civ 349; [2010] WLR (D) 95
“When a judge was determining (i) a husband’s application to terminate a financial obligation to his former wife and (ii) the former wife’s application to capitalise the obligation, and he was comparing the financial needs of the former wife and a present wife, there remained a presumption that on marriage each spouse took the other subject to all existing encumbrances, whether known or not.”
WLR Daily, 12th April 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal
“Where a court made a periodical payments order for a claimant in proceedings involving catastrophic injury in the context of future care, of which the main element was the wages of the carers, the annual earnings survey published for care assistants and home carers was the more appropriate and usable index than the retail price index.”
The Times, 30th January 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Agreement has legal force
Court of Appeal
“An agreement between spouses to compromise an ancillary relief claim need not be approved by the court to have legal force.”
The Times, 14th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] EWCA Civ 938
“An agreement whereby a wife waived her entitlement to periodical payments from her former husband under an order of court on the promise of her former husband to leave her £100,000 in his will was legally effective even though it had not been approved by the court.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024