VB v JP: compensation is no more than and aspect of fairness.
Nicholls v Nicholls: the court was right to show its “disapproval of the disobedience to its order”.
The House of Lords put forward the concept of “compensation” in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 3 All ER 1 and the debate has run ever since. In VB v JP [2008] EWHC 112 (Fam), [2008] All ER (D) 230 (Jan) the president of the Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, provides guidance on the issue.
VB v JP
This case concerns W’s application for an increase in periodical payments. The original ancillary relief proceedings were heard in June 2001 following the parties’ 11-year marriage. At the time of the original proceedings H was 37 years old and W was 39. There were two children from the marriage, both boys, then aged four and six. They are now aged 11 and 13. Both live with their mother and are day boys at public schools. H was
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
