header-logo header-logo

17 February 2017
Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Mortgage release out of order

The draft “Mostyn” financial remedies order provides for the court to actually order a party to procure mortgage release and to indemnify. By virtue of what authority can the court do this? Also, is it essential for a child periodical payments order to apportion maintenance between more than one child rather than just order a global sum?

The High Court powers given to the family court by Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, s 31E(1) may enable it to order one party to indemnify the other, but there is no authority for making an order requiring release from a mortgage. On the contrary, the Court of Appeal has expressed the view that the court is not able to order a party to secure release from a mortgage: see Birch v Birch [2015] EWCA Civ 833, [2015] All ER (D) 34 (Aug). The position should be covered by an undertaking and the order should make provision for enforcement in the event of non-compliance.

An order for periodical payments may be made in a global sum

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll