Spousal/civil partner periodical payments

General principles

On an application for financial orders the court may order a party to a marriage or civil partnership to make periodical payments to the other party.

The court’s power to make a periodical payments order is contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004)—that is, an order that either party to the marriage or civil partnership shall make to the other such periodical payments, for such term, as may be specified in the order (commonly known as maintenance orders).

In determining whether or not a periodical payments order is appropriate regard must be had to the checklist set out in MCA 1973, s 25 and CPA 2004, Sch 5, Pt 5

See Practice Note: General principles—spousal/civil partner periodical payments. The following Precedent letters may be sent by practitioners to their clients: Financial applications to the court—client guide, Financial disclosure and Form E—client guide and Spousal and civil partner maintenance—client guide.

Quantum of periodical payments

No strict formula applies to the calculation of

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Standish)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents