header-logo header-logo

19 June 2015 / Charlotte Doherty
Issue: 7657 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

A meal ticket for life?

nlj_7657_doherty

Has our approach to maintenance changed forever, asks Charlotte Doherty

The case of Wright v Wright [2015] EWCA Civ 201 generated a storm of press attention. The media have suggested that this case heralds the end for joint lives maintenance orders and that women should return to work following a divorce, rather than looking to their ex-husband for long term financial support.

Whatever the legal significance of Wright (and it needs to be remembered it was only a refusal of permission to appeal) it certainly seems to have struck a chord with many, both inside and outside the family justice system.

Of more interest to practitioners perhaps, is the decision of Mr Justice Mostyn in SS v NS (Spousal Maintenance) [2014] EWHC 4183 (Fam). While Mostyn J found that it would be impossible to adopt a formulaic approach to calculating spousal maintenance, he suggested that it should be calculated on the basis of needs and the preference should invariably be for an extendable term rather than joint lives orders. It will be

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

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll