header-logo header-logo

An appropriate standard of living?

23 August 2016 / Margaret Hatwood
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_7715_hatwood

Margaret Hatwood explores the assessment of needs by the court to provide a sufficient standard of living

  • Divorce claims should be adjudicated on the base of “need” rather than “sharing”.
  • Parties cannot expect to replicate their previous standard of living going forwards but the basis of the award bears sufficient correlation to that standard of living.
  • The first consideration in any assessment of needs must be the welfare of any minor child or children of the family.

As family lawyers know, one of the factors that the court has to have regard to in deciding how to exercise its powers under ss 23, 24, 24A, 24B and 24E of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) is the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage.

There has been a trend over recent years for the courts to be less generous in having regard to the standard of living. Indeed, Mostyn J said in the case of SS v NS [2014] EWHC 4183

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll