header-logo header-logo

01 August 2013 / Margaret Hatwood , Rebecca Carter
Issue: 7571 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

The lump sum trap

istock_000006153344medium

When is a clean break not a clean break? Margaret Hatwood & Rebecca Carter report

Most people going through a divorce want to achieve future certainty in their financial arrangements. This can be achieved by what is known as a “clean break”. A full clean break means that neither party has any right to come back to court in the future for any orders for maintenance or capital.

While this is often the desired outcome, it is not always practically possible. Where an order is made for ongoing maintenance in favour of a husband or wife, the court can only impose a capital clean break, so that neither party can come back to apply for capital or lump sums in the future. Whereas the maintenance can be varied upwards or downwards if there is a change of circumstance. Achieving a capital clean break, however, poses its own problems and there are certain pitfalls to watch out for.

While an order for “lump sums” cannot be varied, an order for a

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