Stacey v McNicholas [2022] EWHC 278 (Fam)2 November 2022
Published: 23/11/2022 09:00
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2022/278
Moor J. Under Schedule 1, F had been ordered to pay a lump sum of £350,000 to the M to act as a housing fund, in addition to a sum of £50,000 on standard Schedule 1 terms. F was granted permission to appeal solely in relation to the lump sum of £350k.
M applied for further Schedule 1 provision to cover rental payments pending her receipt of the capital sum. HHJ Reardon ordered F to pay a lump sum to cover M’s rent for the period prior to the hearing and further lump sums of £2,500 per month until the capital lump sum was paid.
F’s appealed that order. This was not a case with a maximum child maintenance assessment and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to award periodical payments. F argued that the series of lump sums were periodical payments 're-flagged'.
Moor J placed reliance on the parties’ acceptance that the court has jurisdiction to provide for housing costs by way of a capital sum, stating that it would be difficult to see why the court would not also have jurisdiction to provide for the costs of housing prior to a property being acquired. Moor J ultimately concludes that the court does have jurisdiction to make an award to cover rent prior to the capital sum being paid, accepting that this would have to be done by way of lump sums.
©2023 Class Legal classlegal.com
