The husband appealed against an ancillary relief order, and particularly as to an order that he should continue to pay maintenance for the joint lives of the parties rater than for five years. He was earning a substantial income but anticipated that he might lose that income within a few years. The court had said that he should endeavour to continue for two to three years before leaving his position, and should then re-apply as necessary.
Held: It could not be said that the judge had failed to consider the requirements of the Act. It had been unclear as to whether the husband would in fact be leaving his job, and the judge had been entitled to make the order he did. The order would provide a standard of living for the wife which was reasonable while the husband continued in his work. The appeal was dismissed.
Sir Mark Potter
 EWHC 519 (Fam),  2 FLR 113
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25
England and Wales
Cited – Piglowska v Piglowski HL 24-Jun-1999
When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Cordell v Cordell 2002
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 February 2021; Ref: scu.266245