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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll