Vaughan v Vaughan: CA 31 Mar 2010

H had been paying maintenance to W for many years after the divorce. W now appealed against an order revoking the arrangement without providing a capital sum to replace it. H’s health had declined, and also his earnings.
Held: W’s appeal succeeded. W had taken as part of her settlement a desk which was now very valuable, and its value should be amortised and allowed for. The court had however given undue emphasis to the contribution of H’s second wife in increasing H’s pension and other resources, in effect allowing for a potential claim by her in some other future, and otherwise unanticipated divorce. It had not properly allowed for H’s moral obligations to W. W’s home required significant repairs, but both parties might have to downsize. The court re-instated and capitalised the maintenance due, and made the order accordingly.

Wilson, Hughes, Patten LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 349, [2010] 3 WLR 1209, [2010] Fam Law 793, [2010] 2 FLR 242, [2010] 2 FCR 509, [2011] 1 Fam 46
Bailii, Times
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 31(7B)
England and Wales
AppliedRoberts v Roberts PDAD 1970
W appealed against an order of the justices that, out of a net income of andpound;22 per week, H should pay only andpound;2.50 per week for the maintenance of herself and their son. The reasoning of the justices was that H needed to apply the . .
CitedPearce 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 . .
CitedLauder v Lauder FD 21-Mar-2007
W appealed against the variation of periodical payments order.
Held: The court will not generally expect W to apply inherited capital (as opposed to the income generated therefrom) to the meeting of her maintenance needs. . .

Cited by:
CitedS v AG (Financial Remedy: Lottery Prize) FD 14-Oct-2011
The court considered how to treat a lottery win of andpound;500,000 in the context of an ancillary relief application on a divorce.
Held: The answers in such cases must be fact specific. ‘In the application of the sharing principle (as opposed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.406625