header-logo header-logo

Family maintenance: subject to review?

09 June 2023 / Stephen Gerlis
Issue: 8028 / Categories: Opinion , Family , Divorce , Ancillary relief
printer mail-detail
125554
Recent years have shown how quickly fortunes can change: Stephen Gerlis makes the case for regular reviews of maintenance payments in private family law

In March 2023, Lord Bellamy, a government justice minister, announced that he had asked the Law Commission to examine whether the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) needed updating. The main complaint was about asset-splitting and the wide discretion afforded to the courts when making such awards, which can cause uncertainty. On 4 April, the Law Commission announced a review of the law governing financial remedies on divorce and dissolution. It will consider whether the current law works effectively and delivers ‘fair and consistent’ outcomes for separating couples.

I propose joining the long queue of legal commentators at the door of the Law Commission, but my suggestion is rather niche and covers an area which ought to be obvious but is often overlooked—maintenance. Before there is a collective groan, may I make it clear that there is one particular aspect of maintenance that bothers me.

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll