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

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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll