The parties disputed an ancillary relief claim on their divorce. The husband had been suicidally depressed. The wife had committed adultery over a long time and also assisted her husband’s failed suicide. The husband now sought to rely upon her behaviour, saying it would be inequitable to ignore it. Held: The husband’s appeal was allowed. … Continue reading Kyte v Kyte: CA 22 Jul 1987
The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act. Held: The customs had not established that the 1994 had any statutory priority. Both … Continue reading Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A: CA 22 Jul 2002
The court considered the duty of parties in finacial relief proceedings to give full disclosure. Held: In proceedings for ancillary relief, there was a duty, both under the rules and by authority, on the parties to make full and frank disclosure of their property and financial resources; accordingly the power to set aside orders was … Continue reading Robinson v Robinson (Disclosure) Practice Note: CA 1982
Second application for a legal services payment order Judges: Mrs Justice Roberts Citations: [2020] EWHC 3087 (Fam) Links: Bailii Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 22ZA Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family, Legal Aid Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.656332
W appealed against dismissal of her petition for divorce to the effect that her husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably have been expected to live with him. The judge had found H difficult but that his behaviour was not to the level suggested. Held: The appeal succeeded. Applying Livingstone … Continue reading Birch v Birch: CA 22 Oct 1991
The husband and wife divorced and a property adjustment order applied for. The husband had been convicted and a drugs proceeds order made under the 1994 Act. The order had not been satisfied, and the receiver applied for money from the matrimonial property. Held: The two Acts gave no indication that either was to take … Continue reading H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA: CA 22 Jul 2002
H appealed against an ancillary relief order. . .
The test for what sex somebody was for the purposes of validating a marriage was the sex as decided and set out on the birth registration certificate. Though increasing recognition has been given to the complexities of gender identity over the . .
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
The wife and her second husband occupied a property in the joint names of herself and of her first husband, who, following their divorce, had applied under the Act of 1973 for a lump sum order reflective of his equal beneficial interest in it to be . .
The Court may vary and extent the time for the payment of a lump sum where the payer was not at fault. The time for payment was not part of the substance of the order. . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
An application for maintenance pending suit could properly be made, to include payment on account of the legal costs of pursuing the action. Such legal expense were of a recurring, and income type nature. Maintenance was not confined to the day to day living expenses of an applicant. In the absence of a statutory definition, … Continue reading A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees): FD 15 Nov 2000
Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied for lump sum provision. W appealed against order … Continue reading Wyatt v Vince: SC 11 Mar 2015
The husband appealed against an ancillary relief order, saying that the judge had applied the terms of a separation agreement without acknowledging that that agreement had been entered into without full disclosure having been made. Had the judge looked properly at the issues identified in the Act, the order would have been different. Held: The … Continue reading A v B (Ancillary relief: Separation agreement): FD 17 Jan 2005
The parties had divorced. The wife alleged a serious assault against her husband, and instructed a claims firm to recover damages from him. Her ancillary relief claim in the divorce was compromised with her having sought to rely upon the assault, but without mentioning having instructed the claims firm. The husband resisted these proceedings for … Continue reading Ganesmoorthy v Ganesmoorthy: CA 16 Oct 2002
The parties had been married before and had signed a prenuptial agreement. Held: Thorpe LJ set out the duties of a judge in ancillary relief applications: ‘A judge has to do fairness between the parties, having regard to all the circumstances. He must be free to include within that discretionary review the factors which compelled … Continue reading G v G (Financial Provision: Separation Agreement): CA 28 Jun 2000
The court considered an application for ancillary relief. The assets were substantial, but before the judge was to deliver his judgment he accepted evidence from the husand that the sale of his business had fallen through and H’s income substantially reduced.The judge had achieved a clean break by allocating properties to the respective parties, giving … Continue reading Wells v Wells: CA 20 Mar 2002
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
The court urged caution in a judge using his own experience of the property market by way of judicial notice: ‘[W]herever it is to be argued that the wife could find alternative accommodation for herself out of her share of the equity, whatever that may be . . there should be evidence put before the … Continue reading Martin v Martin: CA 10 Mar 1977
The court has no power to dismiss an applicant’s claim for periodical payments against her will. Citations: [1981] Fam 31, [1980] 1 FLR 286 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Mentioned – Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane HL 24-May-2006 Fairness on Division of Family Capital The House faced … Continue reading Dipper v Dipper: CA 1980
In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband had not made frank disclosure of his assets. The final Calderbank offer of andpound;600,000 was made only the day before the substantive hearing. The offer was rejected. The judge awarded the wife a lump sum of andpound;1 million. The judge made no order as to costs after the date … Continue reading Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2): CA 1 Apr 1991
The parties had been married for only a few weeks. The wife sought ancillary relief. Held: The marriage had been preceded by a pre-marital or pre-nutial agreement, under which if the husband sought a divorce (a talaq) she would recover her marriage portion, but if she did (a kuhla), she would have to negotiate a … Continue reading N A v M O T: FD 30 Jan 2004
The deceased’s widow complained that her husband’s will had not made proper provision for her as was required by the order which ‘ In the case of a spouse reasonable financial provision means such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive, … Continue reading Moorhead v Moorhead: ChNI 11 Jan 2002
The court considered the division of family assets on an ancillary relief application where a family company assets were involved but the assets had been divided equally: ‘The parties have, perhaps unusually, ordered their affairs during the marriage to achieve equality and to eliminate any potential for gender discrimination. They had in effect elected for … Continue reading Parra v Parra: CA 20 Dec 2002
A tenancy which had been terminated by a notice given by one of the joint tenants had expired. It did not come to an end by any deed, and so was not capable of being set aside by a family court in the course of divorce proceedings. The possession proceedings issued by the landlord could … Continue reading Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen and Another: HL 29 Jul 1998
When considering the division of matrimonial assets following a divorce, the court’s duty was, within the context of the rules set down by the Act, to impose a fair settlement according to the circumstances. Courts should be careful not to make assumptions about the roles taken by the parties according to their sex, and the … Continue reading Cowan v Cowan: CA 14 May 2001
On a divorce where there were fairly substantial sums at issue, the two parties argued for different bases for calculation of the wife’s interests, either her reasonable needs according to Duxbury tables, or otherwise to reflect the particular facts. Held: The Ogden tables should not be preferred in matrimonial proceedings. In substantial asset cases two … Continue reading Dharamshi v Dharamshi: CA 5 Dec 2000
The wife committed suicide six months after the ancillary relief order. The husband sought to re-open out of time the ancillary relief order and to reclaim the sum paid from the estate. Held: Where an ancillary relief order came to be reconsidered because its basis had been undermined by supervening events, the court should look … Continue reading Smith v Smith: CA 20 Feb 1991
Appeal from order setting aside decree absolute of divorce – finding of fraud as to length of separation. Judges: Lord Justice Moylan Citations: [2020] EWCA Civ 1740 Links: Bailii Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.656881
There is no presumption in favour of a clean break provision in an ancillary relief claim. A nominal award of maintenance was appropriate where the wife’s long dependency and continued responsibility for children made future earning capacity problematic. A dismissal of a claim for maintenance where the wife was relatively mature should not be expected. … Continue reading SRJ v DWJ (Financial Provision): CA 20 Oct 1999
The parties were divorced, but when the husband applied for ancillary relief, the wife petitioned for nullity on the basis that the marriage was bigamous. The husband countered that she had known that his first marriage had only ended after this marriage. His application was struck out under 25(2)(g) Held: The husband’s application was re-instated … Continue reading Sudershan Kumar Rampal v Surendra Rampal: CA 19 Jul 2001
An accountant’s professional privilege was overborne by the court, and a wider disclosure was approved. The court set a wide boundary around the scope of the documents which he was ordering the wife’s accountant to produce: ‘If the boundary is set narrow, there is the risk that information as to the nature and extent of … Continue reading D v D (Production Appointment): FD 29 Nov 1995
A director’s pension scheme could be treated as a post-nuptial marriage settlement where the director was the only scheme member. It was thus a matrimonial asset capable of variation by a court in ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. The court sought to define a marriage settlement: ‘In the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 settlement is … Continue reading Brooks v Brooks: HL 29 Jun 1995
The couple being joint tenants of the matrimonial home had applied for its purchase form the Council. Divorce proceedings commenced and she purported to terminate the joint tenancy. He applied to set aside the notice, and the Local Authority intervened. Neither the right to buy, nor the notice to terminate were dispositions of property, and … Continue reading Bater v Greenwich London Borough Council: CA 28 Sep 1999
Citations: (1981) Fam Law 243 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37 Cited by: Applied – Shipman v Shipman FD 1991 W sought an order under s37 of the 1973 Act restraining H in divorce proceedings from disposing of or dealing with $300,000, or one half of his severance pay, whichever was the greater, pending determination … Continue reading Roche v Roche: CA 1981
The widow’s claim under the Act was contested by three daughters where the widow received a specific legacy and the will gave trustees a power to apply any part of the residue during the lifetime of the widow to provide and maintain a suitable residence. The court reduced the specific legacy and made an order … Continue reading Elizabeth Adams v Julian James Lewis (Administrator of the Estate of Frank Adams dec): ChD 26 Jan 2001
The court set out a series of principles applicable in ancillary relief cases where the resources exceeded the strict needs of the parties, including that the court should not make allowance for a spouse’s desire to be able to leave a sum to her children by her will, and ‘. . . the word ‘needs’ … Continue reading Preston v Preston: CA 1982
The widower aged 81, appealed against refusal of provision under the 1975 Act from his wife’s estate. She had left him nothing. The judge at first instance had found, applying Styler, that her treatment was not unreasonable, and that therefore no jurisdiction to make an award arose. Held: The court considered the application of section … Continue reading Moody v Stevenson: CA 12 Jul 1991
In the case of an application under the Act by a surviving spouse, maintenance is not the only, or even the dominant, consideration to be taken into account by the court. ‘In an application under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the court is directed, so far as it is practicable and is … Continue reading Re Besterman, decd: CA 1984
A marriage celebrated outside England under a system of law permitting polygamy is not to be regarded as polygamous for the purpose of s.11(d) (or presumably for other purposes) if neither spouse had capacity to enter into a second marriage, such capacity being determined by the law of the domicile of the spouse in question … Continue reading Hussain v Hussain: CA 1983
W sought an order under s37 of the 1973 Act restraining H in divorce proceedings from disposing of or dealing with $300,000, or one half of his severance pay, whichever was the greater, pending determination of the ancillary relief proceedings. Held: The terms of s37 had not been satisfied. But, relying on Roche, it was … Continue reading Shipman v Shipman: FD 1991
The court considered whether it was possible to make an adoption order notwithstanding that the applicants had separated as a couple. Held: In making the order the court took into account the following: (a) the advantage to the child of becoming a child of the family from an emotional and social perspective, (b) the financial … Continue reading In Re WM (Adoption: Non-Patrial): FD 1997
The parties in ancillary relief proceedings sought orders for discovery. H had been to the wife’s flat surreptitiously on five occasions, and taken photocopies of so many documents obtained by him in the course of those visits (but returned after photocopying) that the photocopies themselves would now ‘fill a crate’, as the judge was told. … Continue reading Hildebrand v Hildebrand: 1992
In deciding financial settlement, the court can consider contribution made by the Wife through her own special skills to the husband’s business. One could not sensibly fit an allowance for contribution into an analysis of a wife’s needs. That would do violence to language and to section 25(2), where contribution and needs are set out … Continue reading Conran v Conran: FD 14 Jul 1997
A section 27 claim cannot be pursued by a surviving spouse. Black J said: ‘It is clearly established that until an ancillary relief order has been made, an ancillary relief claim is not a cause of action. This appears to be because of the discretionary nature of ancillary relief, someone seeking ancillary relief may establish … Continue reading McMinn v McMinn: 2003
The nature of the family assets may be taken into account when considering how they are to be divided in ancillary relief proceedings on divorce, where these are businesses which will be crippled or lose much of their value, if disposed of prematurely in order to fund an equal division. Coleridge J said: ‘In the … Continue reading N v N (Financial Provision: Sale of Company): FD 2001
The court considered the argument that a wife’s maintenance pending suit should be limited to her reasonable needs: ‘I do not accept that argument for the following reasons. The purpose of the 1970 Act was to change statutory provisions that were outdated and inadequate and to make a new start. Although the word ‘maintenance’ was … Continue reading G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs): FD 2003
The husband and his wife agreed that in consideration, inter alia, of the wife consenting to the husband divorcing her on the ground of two years’ separation and consent, he would transfer the matrimonial home to her, and she would take over responsibility for the mortgage. A decree absolute was made on the husband’s petition … Continue reading Sutton v Sutton: 1984
A court had the power to extend a maintenance order which was limited in time, even after it had expired. It was sufficient that the application had been made before the order had expired. Conflicting series of cases should now be settled on this basis. To hold otherwise and require that the order itself must … Continue reading Jones v Jones: CA 11 Apr 2000
Where W had substantial capital assets, but little income, and the husband’s position was the reverse, it was not open to her to plead that a divorce should be refused on the grounds of exceptional hardship. Loss of pension in this case was insufficient. Citations: Times 23-Nov-1998 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 5 Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Archer v Archer: CA 23 Nov 1998
Where a party alleges that the other has made a nil contribution to the welfare of the family, the case must be advanced under s25(2)(g). Citations: [2001] Family Law 656 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break) CA … Continue reading Wells v Wells: FD 2001
The parties had married in 1973, separated in 1976, and divorce proceedings begun in 1977. W suffered bad health and did not work. H had a position as a senior editor of a newspaper. Held: The periodical payments order should provide support for W during her ill health, but not for life. A lump sum … Continue reading Robertson v Robertson: FD 1982
The family had been wealthy. Assets were placed into a trust. The businesses fell into difficulty, and the parties divorced. The wife requested the court to set aside the trust. Held: The trust was to be varied as a post-nuptial settlement. The settlement had not ceased to be post nuptial merely by removal of the … Continue reading Charalambous v Charalambous: FD 5 Mar 2004
The court was asked whether a wife under an (actually) polygamous marriage, entered into under the rites of the Moslem religion, was competent to give evidence against her husband. It was conceded that ‘in English law generally’ the lady was not the co-accused’s wife; but even so, it was argued, she was to be treated … Continue reading Regina v Junaid Khan: CACD 1987
The court considered the effect of a remarriage on a financial provision order made on divorce. Sir George Baker P said: ‘The prospect, chance or hope of remarriage is, I think, irrelevant, but the fact of remarriage, which does not admit of speculation, is in my judgment, something which the court must consider in the … Continue reading H v H (Family Provision: Remarriage): CA 1975
The word ‘property’ in the section refers only to property in which one or other of the parties has a beneficial interest, and the words ‘deal with’ relate to acts of dealing, not a lack of dealing with. Citations: [1990] 2 FLR 361, Times 12-Apr-1990 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37(2)(a) Cited by: Cited – … Continue reading Crittenden v Crittenden: CA 12 Apr 1990
When considering an application for ancillary relief by a wife, the court should consider the wife’s position, ‘not from the narrow point of ‘need’, but to ascertain her reasonable requirements.’ Judges: Ormrod LJ Citations: [1976] Fam 83 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Cited by: Cited – White v White HL 26-Oct-2000 The couple going through … Continue reading O’D v O’D: CA 1976
Both parties sought a variation of a maintenance order. The former husband sought to be allowed to pay a sufficient capital sum to his former wife to commute the payment in her favour. Held: Provided the sum could be paid and the result would not prejudice the arrangements for the children the variation sought by … Continue reading S v S: FD 1986
The wife, following divorce, applied for a lump sum order to be made against the husband but then she added a claim under s.17 of the Act of 1882 for a declaration that she had an interest, for which the husband should account to her, in the assets of two public houses which together they … Continue reading Fielding v Fielding: CA 1977
H and W agreed a consent order following a divorce under which H was to pay W andpound;13,000 from his half-share of the matrimonial home in settlement of W’s claims for financial provision for herself. Both consulted solicitors and the agreement was reached without affidavits having been filed. The agreement was embodied in a court … Continue reading Wales v Wadham: FD 1977
Ormrod LJ said: ‘But it must be a matter entirely for the judge to look at all the facts and the financial situation of each party and taking into account the fact that they made this agreement which to my mind is a very important piece of conduct under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes … Continue reading Brockwell v Brockwell: CA 5 Nov 1975
H had mortgaged the matrimonial home to release funds to support his lifestyle. The bank knew about the family circumstances and the mortgage was set aside at first instance. W applied to have the charge set aside. Held: The application failed. The charge had been executed long before W had commenced her claims. The Court … Continue reading Kemmis v Kemmis (Welland and Others Intervening): CA 1988
A finding in ancillary relief proceedings is not binding on others who were not themselves parties, and third parties should be allowed to be joined if necessary.Lord Denning MR said: ‘It seems to me that, under section 24 of the 1973 Act, if an intervenor comes in making a claim for the property, then it … Continue reading Tebbutt v Haynes: 1981
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
H had transferred his interest in the jointly owned matrimonial home to W for her promise to have sole liability for the mortgage debt. Nearly a year later her divorce claim for capital provision was dismissed by consent on the basis that H had already transferred his interests to W. H was bankrupted, and his … Continue reading Re Kumar (A Bankrupt), ex parte Lewis v Kumar: 1993
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 judge had ordered the father to make money settlements on his daughters which had no relation to accommodation or their need during minority. Held: The judge had gone quite ouside the jurisdiction of the Act, and the appeal succeeded. Children are entitled to a suitable home, to an upbringing, and to an education which … Continue reading Lord Lilford v Glyn: CA 1979
Citations: [1994] 2 FLR 801, [1994] 2 FCR 1031 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25(2)(g) Cited by: Cited – Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break) CA 29-Jul-2005 The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The … Continue reading H v H (Financial Provision: Conduct): 1994
A delay in presenting or prosecuting a claim for ancillary relief and an inability to show need when the claim is determined may result in a smaller award or even a nil award. Citations: [1979] 1 FLR 10 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Cited by: Cited – G v G and Another FdNI 25-Oct-2003 There … Continue reading Chambers v Chambers: 1979
H drank excessively and was unemployed. In the divorce he made an application for ancillary relief against the offer from W to share the proceeds of sale of the house equally. Held: H was homeless and unemployed. His behaviour was such as should be taken into account, but his needs required provision of a sum … Continue reading K v K (Ancillary Relief): 1990
The court considered the way of distributing property purchased by an unmarried couple: ‘When such a relationship comes to an end, just as with many divorced couples, there are likely to be disputes about the distribution of shared property. How are such disputes to be decided? They cannot be decided in the same way as … Continue reading Walker v Hall: CA 1984
In an ancillary relief application, there was enough capital to provide adequately for both husband and wife. Held: When considering the needs and obligations of the parties a broad view could be taken: (Ormrod LJ) ‘In a case such as this ‘needs’ can be regarded as equivalent to ‘reasonable requirements’, taking into account the other … Continue reading Page v Page: CA 1981
The court considered the provision to be made under the 1975 Act for a surviving spouse: ‘In his argument in this court Mr. Vane relied strongly on s 3(2) and referred us to a recent case in this court, Moody v. Stevenson, a decision of Mustill LJ and Waite J which appears to give great … Continue reading Jessop v Jessop: CA 2 Jan 1992
In a divorce petition, the petitioner sought, under section 24 of the 1973 Act, to sever the joint tenancy in the family home. The respondent died in a car crash before the hearing. Held: The mere inclusion of such a prayer did not itself operate to sever the joint tenancy. The desire to sever must … Continue reading Harris v Goddard: CA 1983
A pension fund with only one member can be a post nuptial settlement and open to variation in ancillary proceedings in a divorce. Citations: Independent 14-May-1993, Times 05-May-1993 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24(1)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.78044
The court was asked whether it is fair in all the circumstances for the court to make an order on a claim by a former husband for a financial remedies order against his former wife under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and, if so, the form and content of the award to be made in … Continue reading A v B (No 2): FC 14 Jun 2018
The family assets were in the region of andpound;8.5M. The wife sought a half share. The husband proposed that she should have 40%. The husband had built the family fortune through exceptional hard work and astute business acumen in the field of substantial development and construction projects. The court considered how capital and income could … Continue reading G v G (Financial Provision Equal Division): FD 2 Jul 2002
The court considered issues about the application of, and the relationship between, the principles of need, sharing and compensation in the determination of financial claims under the 1973 Act, specifically: (i) Is an earning capacity capable of being a matrimonial asset to which the sharing principle applies and in the product of which, as a … Continue reading Waggott v Waggott: CA 11 Apr 2018
The parties had sought a child maintenance order form the court, but the husband resiled from his agreement. Held: Where the court was unexpectedly blocked in this way, it had a power to make an order for payment by way of a lump sum of the difference to the wife for the benefit of the … Continue reading V v V (Ancillary relief: Power to order child maintenance): FD 6 Jun 2001
A bigamist is unable to claim ancillary relief in the second marriage; would be against public policy. Since bigamy was a serious crime which undermined fundamental notions of monogamous marriage, the Court would not as a matter of public policy entertain an application for financial relief under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 from a person … Continue reading Whiston v Whiston: CA 8 May 1995
Judge did not make pensions ear-marking order based on transfer value. Provision for divorced spouse could be kept alive by judge refusing to dismiss claim under Inheritance Act. Citations: Gazette 20-May-1998 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Family Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89683
Maintenance payable for a child is to be treated as the income of the mother for grant calculation purposes. Citations: Times 29-Jun-1993 Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 23(1)(d) Judicial Review Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88008
H, a devout Muslim, objected to the English court dealing with the divorce proceedings brought by W. He said that under Sharia law, any proceedings had to occur in Pakistan. Held: The court had jurisdiction. There was clear evidence that the law of divorce in Pakistan was discriminatory, and that W would have less rights … Continue reading B v L: FC 20 Oct 2016
W appealed against a financial remedies award achieving equality between herself and H. The marriage had not been a long one and they had no children. W challenged the imposition of an equal sharing principle. Held: W’s appeal succeeded. Section 25 required the court in every case to look at all the circumstances, and the … Continue reading Sharp v Sharp: CA 13 Jun 2017
The court held that a wife’s disposition of her inheritance from her mother was a circumstances which the Court was required to have regard to when making an Order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. If one party deliberately divests himself or herself of assets that is an important factor. Citations: (1992) 1 FLR 16 … Continue reading Primavera v Primavera: CA 1992
The husband had forged his wife’s signature on the loan application and on the charge of the house held by himself and his wife as joint tenants. He had left the country, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the charge, and ex parte obtained an order nisi charging the husband’s interest in the house. The … Continue reading First National Securities v Hegerty: CA 1984
The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction. Held: It had been asserted that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition in … Continue reading Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces): FC 30 Sep 2014
Connell J discussed the effect of the presence of a prenuptial agreement, saying ‘The prenuptial agreement in my view is relevant to tending to guide the court to a more modest award than might have been made without it. I reject outright the suggestion that it should dictate the wife’s entitlement; but I bear it … Continue reading M v M (Prenuptial Agreement): FD 2002
The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The wife sought to rely upn the husband’s behaviour to counter any argument as to the shortness of the marriage. The husband answered to say that she had declared that she would … Continue reading Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break): CA 29 Jul 2005
Enforcement of registration of result of family law arbitration. Judges: Mr Justice Mostyn Citations: [2021] EWHC 1889 (Fam), [2021] WLR(D) 388, [2021] 1 WLR 5393 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25, Arbitration Act 1996 68 69 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Family Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.665991
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
Application for financial remedies within divorce. Lord Meston C HHJ [2015] EWHC 3941 (Fam) Bailii Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Family Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568751
Application for a pension sharing order within financial remedy proceedings following a divorce, which raises the question of what jurisdiction, if any, the Family Court may have to make an order transferring or assigning one spouse’s interest in a pension annuity policy to the other spouse outside the statutory scheme established by the 1973 Act. … Continue reading Goyal v Goyal: CA 29 Jul 2016
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction was an infringement of her human rights. Held: Such a relationship is recognised in England as a civil … Continue reading Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others: FD 31 Jul 2006
Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible with the claimant’s … Continue reading Bellinger v Bellinger: HL 10 Apr 2003
Transgender Male may not marry as Female Despite gender re-assignment, a person born and registered a male, remained biologically a male, and so was not a woman for the purposes of the law of marriage. The birth registration in this case had been correct. The words ‘male and female’ in the section had not previously … Continue reading Bellinger v Bellinger: CA 17 Jul 2001
Claim by adult son for provision – jurisdiction to make order. Lord Justice Moylan [2021] EWCA Civ 1572 Bailii, Judiciary Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 27 England and Wales Family Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.669058
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The judge had made such an order, finding evidence that the companies had … Continue reading Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013
Mr and Mrs Duxbury had been married for 22 years. When, at the end of their marriage, their financial affairs came before the court under the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the 1973 Act, each wanted a clean break. By the standards of the day, Mr. Duxbury was a wealthy man, and a … Continue reading Duxbury v Duxbury: CA 1987
