header-logo header-logo

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

A capital idea

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll