Geraldine Morris advises a cautious approach to clean-break orders
It may be due to current economic pressures that Duxbury calculations seem to be less prevalent; nonetheless, there will be cases in which capitalisation of periodical payments is appropriate and the court will have regard to the various elements required to calculate a Duxbury sum pursuant to the court’s duty under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), s 25A to consider a clean break.
Yates v Yates [2012] EWCA Civ 532, [2012] All ER (D) 209 (Mar) was one such case and illustrates the importance of accurate information. The parties had entered into a financial consent order in 2006 that provided for a clean-break, save for continuing periodical payments payable by the husband to the wife for a three-year term. There was no bar on a further application by the wife under MCA 1973, s 28(1)(a). Pursuant to the consent order, the wife received a substantial lump sum of £978,000, partly to enable her to discharge the mortgage of £451,000 on the
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
