Periodical Payments

GH v IH [2025] EWFC 120 (B)

Judgment date: 10 April 2025 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/120 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

Re CB (Financial Remedies: Antisuit Injunction) [2025] EWHC 427 (Fam)

Judgment date: 25 February 2025 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/427 HHJ Moradifar. Application by the husband for an anti-suit injunction to prevent the wife from pursuing, participating or otherwise continuing any applications for periodical payments for the children of the family or any other applications relating

GH v H [2024] EWHC 2869 (Fam)

Judgment date: 12 November 2024 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2024/2869 Mr Simon Colton KC sitting as a deputy High Court judge. Summary On W’s application, an interim changing order was made final in respect of sums to be paid to a third party/child of

WJB v HJM [2024] EWFC 116 (B)

Judgment date: 15 February 2024 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/116.html District Judge Ashworth. This was an application by W for a Hadkinson order preventing H from pursuing his application to vary an order for periodical payments made in 2017 (‘the order’). The order provided

The Having of Children ‘Changes Everything’ – But in What Way?

The Having of Children ‘Changes Everything’ – But in What Way?

How (if at all) should future non-financial contributions yet to be made by one of the parties to a marriage or civil partnership be taken into account when calculating the quantum of periodical payments? MCA 1973 s 25(2)(f) states as follows: ‘(f) the contributions which each of the

Quantifying Periodical Payments by Reference to the Needs Principle: Surveying the Wood Not the Trees

Quantifying Periodical Payments by Reference to the Needs Principle: Surveying the Wood Not the Trees

Tensions between competing propositions in financial remedy cases are not unusual. For example in Re P (Child: Financial Provision) [2003] 2 FLR 865 Thorpe LJ at [48] referred in the context of CA 1989 Schedule 1 to: ‘an inevitable tension between the two propositions, both correct in law, first that