Financial Provisions Flashcards
Piglowska v Piglowska
Considerations in s25 (2) a-h are not ranked in any hierarchy.
White v White
The role of the court was to achieve a fair outcome and check any award against the ‘yardstick of equality’ - no discrimination.
Needs of a primary carer will always justify unequal division.
Parties were wealthy enough for a clean break.
McFarlane v McFarlane
Spouse gave up a potentially high-earning and ongoing career for the sake of the family so was given more compensation.
Prioritising childre’s welfare should also involve ensuring that their primary carer is properly provided for.
H v H 2007
No compensation as the career given up was not high earning.
Hvorostovsky v Hvorostovsky
No compensation as the career was unlikely to be ongoing.
S v S (Non-Matrimonial Property: Conduct) 2006
No compensation was given as the career was given up as a lifestyle choice. Regarded McFarlane as exceptional and so the court needs to say with near certainty that a very high earning career was given up.
Ashley v Blackman 1988
Clean Break Principle
There was no point to continuing periodic payments as the parties were on benefits.
SS v NS (Spousal Maintenance)
The court must consider a termination of spousal maintenance with a transition to independence as soon as it is just and reasonable.
Wyatt v Vince 2015
Applications for financial provision can be made long after the granting of a divorce, but the payout will be smaller.
Nasim v Nasim 2015
If one spouse suddenly needs more assets, the application for financial provision can be appealed.
In this case, 6 weeks after the provision W was convicted of a criminal offence.
T v R (Maintenance after Re-Marriage agreement) 2016
Periodical payments terminate automatically if the recipient remarries unless there is an agreement to continue the payments.
Barder v Barder 1988
4 conditions for the court to grant an appeal with regards to a change of circumstances:
1) New events invalidate the basis that the order was made.
2) Short time of order
3) Application made promptly
4) Should not prejudice 3rd parties.
Wife killed herself and the children, so the requirements were satisfied.
Westbury v Sampson
The court has the power to re-timetable and adjust the amounts of individual instalments under a lump sum
Wright v Wright
Once the children were older, the husband’s periodical payments were reduced as the wife failed to find employment.
The courts seem to be in favour of terminating spousal maintenance at the earliest opportunity, once the payee has the ability to be financially independent.
