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 order.
Held: W’s appeal failed. W’s position had not been reduced as a consequence of the marriage. H’s purchase of the property had been prudent, but should be taken into account. Even so W was not entitled to such a sum by way of periodical payments as would allow her to finance a mortgage long term. The pension prospects of H were too remote to be taken account of.
Citations:
[1991] 1 FLR 196
Statutes:
Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 25 25A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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 wife sought to rely upn the husband’s behaviour to counter any argument as to the shortness . .
Mentioned – 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: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.235280