P v M (Appeal: Unfair Hearing: Variation of Periodical Payments: Global Orders) [2026] EWHC 1330 (Fam)

Judgment date: 2 June 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/1330

Harrison J. The wife’s appeal against a decision to vary periodical payments was allowed. The hearing was unfair as the wife did not have a proper opportunity to put her case. Further, the judge erred in her approach to the husband’s income and the jurisdiction she had to make a global order or increase spousal maintenance.

Background

The husband is a French national, aged 47. The wife is a UK national who is 43. Both work in film/TV. Including cohabitation, the marriage endured for five years. The parties have one child, C (9). He lives with the wife and spends time with the husband. On 2 January 2020, DDJ Butler made an order for periodical payments for the wife, starting at £4,000 pcm until C was 5, then decreasing to £3,000 pcm until C was 11, £2,000 pcm until C was 18, and a nominal order until completion of C’s tertiary education. An indexation order was included. Periodical payments for C were to be in the sum of £1,500pm.

The first instance decision

On 20 December 2023, the husband applied to vary the order. Between 3–5 November 2025, HHJ Wright heard the application. Owing to non-compliance, there was an absence of up-to-date evidence about the husband’s income. The husband’s contention was that with unforeseen outgoings and a reduction in his income, he could not afford to make payments per the original order. At the time of the hearing, the wife was also receiving approximately £14,500 pa less in child maintenance than was envisaged at the time of the original order (subject to an appeal with the CMS). She argued her monthly shortfall was £6,600. Under the original order, she would be receiving approximately £6,000 pcm, close to the amount of the shortfall.

HHJ Wright found that there had been a change in the husband’s circumstances which justified a reduction. The judge considered the parties’ joint decision to enrol C in a private French speaking school in London, the hard debts the husband had to pay, the soft nature of the wife’s debts, and found that the wife’s budget was unrealistic and inappropriate. The judge reduced the sum payable by the husband to the wife between 1 December 2025 and 31 December 2027, to £2,500 pcm, discharging the indexation clause also. The decision resulted in the wife receiving a total of £134,538 less than she otherwise would have under the original order.

The appeal

The grounds of appeal were as follows:

(i) The court’s decision was manifestly unjust as it was ‘infected’ by serious procedural irregularities.

(ii) The court erred in its evaluation of the husband’s income.

(iii) The court was wrong to determine that the parties have the same needs given that the wife was the primary carer, the husband lives in his home only a few months of the year, and he can largely live on expenses.

(iv) The court failed to have regard to C’s welfare and the impact of the decision on his accommodation.

(v) The court was wrong to conclude it had no jurisdiction to vary upwards the spousal maintenance award and/or make a ‘global order’ combining spousal and child maintenance.

Ground 1

The wife’s case was that the judge conducted the hearing in a manner which was unfair to her. On appeal it was found that:

1. It was not wrong, per se, for the hearing to proceed without hearing evidence from the wife.
2. It was not wrong to deal with the wife’s budget on the basis of submissions, however the judge should’ve confined herself to saying the budget was unaffordable, and her critical remarks will have added to the wife’s sense that the hearing was unfair.
3. The nature and extent of the judge’s interruptions of counsel’s cross-examination prevented the crucial issue of the husband’s income and earning capacity from being adequately addressed. This compromised the fairness of the hearing. The appeal would be allowed on this basis alone.
4. It was not an error for the judge to have found the original order had been ‘wrong’ despite it not having been appealed. The judge was essentially saying that the predictions about the parties’ circumstances hadn’t come to pass.
5. Whilst an understandable complaint, the judge was testing the case being put forward rather than expressing a firm conclusion prior to judgment being given, as the appellant argued.

Ground 2

The judge had fallen into error in her approach to the husband’s tax affairs and his ability to generate income and meet expenditure through his companies.

Grounds 3 and 4

It was unnecessary to consider these grounds.

Ground 5

The judge was wrong to say that the court did not have jurisdiction to make a global order. It was particularly unfortunate that this issue was closed down at such an early stage of the hearing and thus wasn’t ventilated. Further, the court did have jurisdiction to increase spousal periodical payments.

Of note, Harrison J makes comment on the two-tier child maintenance system which ‘is literally one rule for the rich and another for everybody else’. He also commented on the difficulties encountered when spousal maintenance is determined on the basis that child maintenance will be paid a specified rate, but the CMS then makes a differing assessment.

The appeal was allowed and remitted for a rehearing.