Variation of financial remedy orders

The term financial remedy is defined in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 2.3 and encompasses proceedings for a wide range of orders, see further Practice Note: Financial proceedings—orders that can be made by the court — What are financial remedies and financial orders?.

Not all orders made in such proceedings are capable of variation. In very broad terms, almost no orders of a capital nature can be varied whereas income orders generally can. Nevertheless, in addition to provisions enabling the variation of specific types of order, the law recognises some limited ways in which orders that are normally incapable of variation may be altered or discharged in restricted circumstances.

Financial orders—orders the court can vary

The term, financial order, refers to the orders the court can make in proceedings for an order of divorce/dissolution, nullity or (judicial) separation. Some of these are capable of variation, including orders for maintenance pending suit/outcome of proceedings, interim maintenance, periodical payments, legal services and lump sums by instalments, in addition to orders for sale, provided the underlying capital order remains unchanged. In general, capital orders

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

High Court judgment demonstrates usefulness of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in Schedule 1 claims (Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision))

Family analysis: In this Schedule 1 case the mother received, for her son’s benefit: a housing fund of nearly £1m (the property to be held on trust); child maintenance (including ‘HECSA’/carer’s allowance) until completion of his first degree; and lump sums in respect of his capital needs and her own substantial liabilities (chiefly relating to her unpaid legal fees). The father (whose resources could be measured in the ‘tens of millions of pounds’) had sought to prejudice the mother’s claims via transferring his valuable shares to family members, who then transferred the same into a trust structure (settled under Czech law). A further onwards transfer was then made of the trust’s assets into a Liechtenstein foundation. Inferences were drawn by the court in respect of the level of the father’s wealth, and specifically as to the value of the transferred shares. Detailed findings were made against him in respect of the identified transactions, which had been the focus of the mother’s section 423 application. Although a section 423(2) order was not actually made, the application was adjourned pending the father’s compliance with the award, with security in the sum of £600,000 also ordered, alongside a continuation of the freezing orders made earlier in the proceedings. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents