The court avoided technicality when considering the distinction between lump sum and property adjustment orders: ‘Whether it is right, or not, to accept counsel for the husband’s submission that a clear distinction should be drawn between notices of application for financial provision under s 23 and notices of application for property adjustment orders under s 24, may be doubted. These two sections are, in effect, a statement by Parliament of the code to be adopted by the court in dealing with ancillary relief after divorce generally. The fact that they are two separate sections seems to me to be much more a matter of convenience and drafting than anything else. There is no reason that I can see why any distinction should be drawn between those two classes of relief which the court is now empowered to grant. In my view, these two sections should be, as far as possible, regarded as part and parcel of a single code. It may be very important in many cases when the matter comes to be investigated by the court that the court should be free to make either a property adjustment order or a lump sum order, whichever turns out to be the more convenient in the circumstances. It would be unfortunate, I think, if that degree of elasticity were lost for some technical reason. It is quite plain that the same principles apply in the assessment of claims under each of these two sections. That appears from s 25, and it is equally plain from the judgments in Trippas v Trippas of Lord Denning MR and Scarman LJ. Lump sum orders are alternatives to property adjustment orders, and in many cases one order may prove more convenient than another. I do not think there is any greater difference than that. So, in my judgment, the court should keep technical points of the kind with which we are dealing in this case to an absolute minimum.’
Ormrod LJ
[1976] Fam 71
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.198595
