Trusts

Trusts

The court must consider the financial resources the parties have or are likely to have in the foreseeable future under section 25(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and Schedule 5, Part 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). If a party to a marriage or civil partnership is a beneficiary or potential beneficiary under a trust, their interest may be regarded as a financial resource. The court's approach will depend on the nature of their interest and the broader circumstances of the case. A trust may be varied if it is a nuptial settlement—‘relevant settlement’ is the terminology adopted by CPA 2004, Sch 5, Pt 5. Questions of trusts or property law may also need to be determined within financial remedy proceedings.

The court has three main methods of approaching trusts within an application for a financial remedy:

•
treating trust income or assets as a resource available to either party (or declining to do so)—see: Introduction to trusts within financial proceedings — Trusts as a financial resource
•
exercising its power to vary a nuptial settlement under

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of a speech by Mr Justice Nicklin on open justice and details of the Migration Advisory Committee's new family visa financial requirement review. Analysis of recent judgments on disclosure of journalistic sources, non-matrimonial assets and expert witnesses in care proceedings are included.

MAC publishes family visa financial requirements review

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its report on the minimum income requirement (MIR) for the partner migration route recommending that the MIR is not matched to the skilled worker route and making recommendations for different calculations that could be used instead and recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced. This news piece sets out the key points in the report.

Family weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of a decision concerning the additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy. Recent judgments on domestic abuse, applications to set aside return orders and assessment of a solicitor’s conduct where there were issues of client capacity are also included.

Additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy (Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z)

Family analysis: In Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z the court considered an application for a parental order by the intended parents, (the applicants), who were both aged 72 at the time of their application. The child had been born via a surrogacy arrangement in California. While all elements of section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) criteria had been met, Mrs Justice Knowles expressed her concern, at the first hearing, that the applicant’s statements did not sufficiently detail the arrangements for the child’s care should they die or lose capacity during the child’s minority. The court was required to consider the child’s lifelong welfare interests when deciding whether to make a parental order and was obliged to examine carefully what arrangements had been made to secure the child’s welfare should incapacity or death befall either of the applicants. Natalie Sutherland, partner and head of Modern Families at Burgess Mee Family Law considers the decision.