District Judge Hatvany. Final hearing on enforcement and variation of 2012 financial remedy order. The primary issue to be determined was the enforcement and variation of a joint lives periodical payments order made in 2012. The wife sought to enforce the arrears linked to the Retail Price Index (RPI) adjustments, claiming that the husband had not paid the additional RPI sums, resulting in arrears of £16,881.82 plus interest. The husband argued that he had overpaid by covering the wife’s private dental health insurance, dental plan, and mobile phone expenses, which he claimed exceeded the ordered amounts. The husband also applied to remit any arrears and cease future spousal maintenance payments, as he believed the wife’s income needs were overstated and that his financial circumstances had changed.

The judge decided to dismiss the wife’s application for enforcement of the RPI arrears, as the husband demonstrated through a largely unchallenged spreadsheet that his payments, including additional expenses for the wife’s health insurance, dental plan, and mobile phone exceeded the amounts ordered. The wife needed permission to pursue arrears older than 12 months before her application, and the judge saw no reason to grant this permission. Regarding the variation of the financial order, the judge assessed the wife’s reasonable needs at £3,000 per month. The husband was ordered to continue paying £2,000 per month until April 2025, after which the payments would reduce to £1,000 per month to account for the wife’s income from pensions and a solar farm. This reduction was deemed fair given the husband’s financial situation and new family commitments. The wife was expected to receive an income from various sources, including pensions and a solar farm, which would contribute to her financial needs. The judge considered a notional income from these sources when determining the variation in payments.

Finally, the judge encouraged both parties to agree on a Duxbury capitalisation figure to potentially achieve a clean break, expressing a concern about the lack of finality in the litigation and the possibility of future variations.