header-logo header-logo

A capital idea

15 November 2013 / Kim Beatson , Shelley Cumbers
Issue: 7584 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Arguments over the capitalisation of maintenance are best settled via dispute resolution processes, say Kim Beatson & Shelley Cumbers

In divorce and civil partnership dissolutions, the court can capitalise maintenance provision by making lump sum, property adjustment or pension-sharing orders in place of an earlier periodical payments order (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, ss 31(7A)–(7F); Civil Partnership Act 2004, Sch 5, Pt 11, paras 50-62). Capitalisation cannot be used in nullity proceedings, judicial separation or to adjust orders made in favour of children of the family.

When capitalising maintenance the court must:

  • discharge the periodical payments order or secured periodical payments order; or
  • vary such an order so the payments are required to be made or secured only for such further period as is determined by the court.

In exercising its capitalisation powers the court can substitute the following in place of the original maintenance order:

  • a lump sum order;
  • one or more property adjustment orders;
  • one or more pension-sharing orders against a previously unshared pension.

The court can also direct

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll