header-logo header-logo

A life saver?

05 August 2010 / James Riby
Issue: 7429 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail
family_0_5

James Riby expounds on interim relief & the division of chattels

Interim applications in matrimonial finance proceedings regarding rights over property tend to be forgotten and unrequired by practitioners, save for applications for “maintenance pending suit” (MPS). These interim maintenance payments are designed to cover immediate living expenses, such as rent, mortgage and food, and can also cover funding for legal fees in certain “exceptional circumstances” which the courts have identified. They are designed to last until final agreement or final hearing, when the court has jurisdiction to make a range of property orders: lump sum; transfer of property (which can include sale); pension share; and long-term periodical payments. For many litigants MPS can be a financial life-saver, particularly at times like these of extreme pressure on court lists and judicial time.

Jurisdiction

The MPS jurisdiction appears enough for the interim needs of most cases but in others, albeit seemingly rarer, there is a need for the court to be able to make provision for other forms of interim relief.  Below are

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