The parties were middle aged, without children and the marriage was of short duration. W had worked throughout. H lived in tied accomodation, but had purchased a property as an investment and safeguard if he should lose the tied accomodation. W appealed an order providing periodical payments for 18 months and a small lump sum … Continue reading Hedges v Hedges: CA 1991
H had been granted a divorce on the grounds of W’s adultery. The court considered how the clean break provisions could be incorporated in a situation with children and how conduct might affect periodical payments. Held: The duty to consider a clean break applies whether or not there are children. The judge had erred in … Continue reading Suter v Suter and Jones: CA 19 Dec 1986
Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income. Held: The distinction between capital and income awards is no longer conclusive, having arisen in part from historical … Continue reading McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour: CA 7 Jul 2004
To succeed in an appeal against an ancillary relief order, the appellant should be able to show some procedural irregularity or that, in conducting the necessary balancing exercise, the district judge has taken into account matters which were irrelevant or ignored matters which were relevant or has otherwise arrived at a conclusion which was plainly … Continue reading Cordell v Cordell: 2002
The court explained the absence from the check list in the section of any mention of the welfare of a child of the family. Judges: Hale J Citations: [1999] 1 FLR 152 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25A Cited by: Cited – Morgan v Hill CA 28-Nov-2006 The father appealed an award of periodical payments … Continue reading J v C (Child’s Financial Provision): 1999
The parties had compromised most parts of their ancillary relief claim, but not all, settling capital claims, but not issues as to whether maintenance should be stepped down, and should be limited in time to the period of education of the children. Held: The part settlement left the court in an uncomfortable situation, because the … Continue reading Murphy v Murphy: FD 4 Jul 2014
Fairness on Division of Family Capital The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital. Held: The 1973 Act gives only limited guidance on … Continue reading Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006
