header-logo header-logo

13 September 2007
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Divorce Law Update

VARIATION OF MAINTENANCE APPLICATIONS >>
CHANGES IN CAPITAL AND INCOME >>
COMPENSATION AND SHARING >>
CONSIDERATION OF NEEDS >>

Lauder v Lauder [2007] EWHC 1227 (Fam)

This case, heard by Mrs Justice Baron, was an appeal by Mrs Lauder against the decision of a district judge in April 2006 to award her a capital sum of £500,000 in final satisfaction of her application for an upwards variation and capitalisation of maintenance. On appeal, she sought a sum of £1.5m.

Mr and Mrs Lauder married in August 1961 and divorced in November 1985 having had three children. Mrs Lauder’s claims for income and capital were determined by consent in June 1988. She applied for an upwards variation of maintenance in December 2004.

The district judge’s order in April 2006 increased the level of spousal maintenance from £8,000 per annum during joint lives to £40,000 per annum, based upon a generous assessment of the wife’s needs. The maintenance was capitalised in accordance with annuity rate tables, arriving at the sum of £500,000.

Taking account of child maintenance,

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 cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
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
back-to-top-scroll