DH v RH
[2023] EWFC 111
WK v GC
28 April 2023
[2023] EWFC 151 (B)
Family Court
After a long divorce battle, a judge decided the husband has to pay his ex-wife a lump sum to replace her ongoing maintenance payments. The judge also made the husband pay some of the ex-wife's legal costs because he didn't offer a fair settlement sooner.
Key Facts
- •Competing applications for variation/capitalisation/discharge of spousal periodical payments order.
- •Marriage ended in 2002, divorce finalised in 2004 with a periodical payments order of £17,500 per annum.
- •Husband voluntarily increased payments to £24,600 per annum until retirement in 2015, then reduced to original amount.
- •In 2022, wife sought increase and capitalisation, husband sought decrease or discharge.
- •High legal costs incurred by both parties (£227,538 total).
- •Husband planned to make substantial gifts to children.
- •Wife's assets: £1,325,000 property, £362,921 savings/investments, £97,345 pension.
- •Husband's assets: £1,398,255 from property sale, £1,933,403 savings/investments, £1,136,546 pension.
Legal Principles
Court considers all circumstances when varying periodical payments, with first consideration to children's welfare (if applicable).
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s.31
Court considers factors in s.25(2) MCA 1973 when making orders.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s.25(2)
Court may make capital orders (lump sum, property adjustment, pension sharing) when varying or discharging income-related orders.
Case law: Pearce v Pearce, Waggott v Waggott, etc.
Capitalisation assessment is needs-based; payee must justify ongoing dependency.
Case law: Pearce v Pearce, Waggott v Waggott, etc.
Court has wide discretion in considering payee's capital when capitalising; fairness is key.
Case law: Pearce v Pearce, Waggott v Waggott, etc.
Court considers comments from original order.
Case law: Pearce v Pearce, Waggott v Waggott, etc.
Costs orders are exceptional; court considers factors in FPR Part 28 and PD 28A.
FPR Part 28, PD 28A
Outcomes
Husband to pay wife a lump sum of £314,500 to discharge maintenance order.
Wife's needs assessed at £50,000 per annum, with £25,000 covered by her own resources; capitalisation deemed appropriate and affordable for husband.
Husband to pay wife £15,000 towards her costs.
Husband's initial offers were unreasonable; while some of his arguments were reasonable, his failure to make a more reasonable offer at an earlier stage justified a partial costs award.