The court considered its powers when being asked to vary a lump sum provision at the same time as a variation of maintenance.
Held: ‘section 31(7B) clearly introduces a wide discretionary power to be exercised by applying the words of the statute to make by way of supplemental provision (and thus to quantify and define) further lump sum orders, property adjustment orders and pension sharing orders if and when the court discharges or varies an order for periodical payments. Potentially this power could be exercised some considerable time after the original orders for financial provision, including a lump sum order and necessarily a periodical payments order, were made and the power means that an original lump sum order, or property adjustment order or pension sharing order although a once-and-for-all order cannot be regarded as the only order of that type that can ever be made if an order for periodical payments is also made and is continuing.’
Judges:
Charles J
Citations:
[2001] 2 FLR 1240
Statutes:
Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 31(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Harris v Harris CA 1-Jul-2001
The first instance court had acceded to the husband’s application for downward variation of the wife’s periodical payments to andpound;9,000 per annum and to the wife’s application substituting a lump sum of andpound;120,000 for the future . .
See also – Cornick v Cornick (No 2) CA 2-Jan-1995
The court considered the boundary of its power in ordering periodical payments: ‘I do not believe that Hale J erred in her approach in principle to this case, and I reject the submission which Mr Mostyn has made that there was a delimiting factor . .
See Also – Cornick v Cornick (No 1) FD 1994
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Pearce v Pearce CA 28-Jul-2003
The financial claims on divorce had been settled by a compromise recorded in a court order. The order included periodical payments to the former wife. After she suffered financial losses, she sought an increase, and the former husband sought an . .
Cited – McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour CA 7-Jul-2004
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 . .
Appeal from – Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane HL 24-May-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186012