- Lump sum orders under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (Zimina v Zimin)
- Original news
- What was the background to the case?
- What issues arose for the Court of Appeal’s consideration?
- What did the court decide on the appropriateness of the lump sum order, and why?
- What guidance did the court give on what financial provision should be included in the term ‘financial benefit’ under MFPA 1984, s 16(2)(d)?
- How did the court approach how the adequacy of the financial provision should be assessed, either at the date of the order and/or at the date of the trial?
- To what extent is the judgment helpful in clarifying the law in this area? Are there still any unresolved issues practitioners need to watch out for?
- What are the implications for practitioners? What will they need to be mindful of when advising in this area?
Family analysis: A husband’s appeal succeeded against a lump sum order made in favour of the wife by an English court after the couple agreed a financial consent order in Russian divorce proceedings. Jenny Duggan, associate at Stewarts, examines issues that arose in Zimina v Zimin.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial