Lump sum orders

Lump sum orders

The court has jurisdiction to order a party to pay a lump sum (or such sums as may be specified) pursuant to sections 23(1)(c)–23(1)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and Schedule 5, Part 1 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). A lump sum order may be made in favour of the other party, or more rarely for the benefit of a child of the family.

General principles

The court is guided by the MCA 1973, s 25(2)/CPA 2004, Sch 5, Pt 5 factors in considering the appropriate order to make. The first question is whether the payer has resources, within the wide definition given in MCA 1973, s 25(2)(a)/CPA 2004, Sch 5, Pt 5, para 21(2)(a), from which to meet any order. The court must then conduct the statutory exercise to determine whether to exercise its discretion, see Practice Note: Factors considered by the court on financial provision—The

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Imputing Parliament’s intention as to void or voidable divorce orders (Lord Chancellor v 79 Divorced Couples)

Family analysis: This case involved an application by the Lord Chancellor under section 55(1)(c) of the Family Law Act 1986 and the inherent jurisdiction, in 79 divorce cases, for declarations that the marriages no longer existed as of the date the final divorce orders were made. The application was necessary after a glitch in the online court portal allowed the applicants to start an application for a divorce one day earlier than legislation permitted (the relevant time period under section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) being not before ‘the expiration of the period of one year from the date of the marriage’). The High Court considered whether the final divorce orders were voidable or void. It was determined that the orders were voidable and, unless any of the 158 individuals involved sought to argue otherwise before the end of January 2025, the orders were legally valid. Vikkie Chetcuti-Gee, associate solicitor at Burgess Mee Family Law examines the issues.

Family weekly highlights—16 January 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of the roll-out of the transparency pilots, the transition of matters from the national deprivation of liberty list to the Court of Protection and confirmation that applications can now be made online for a ten year search for copies of decree absolutes and final orders. The duty of full and frank disclosure in financial remedy arbitrations is considered, together with inherited assets as non-matrimonial property. A new Family Practical Guidance flowchart on the accelerated first appointment procedure in financial remedy proceedings in the Financial Remedies Court is also set out.

Duty of full and frank disclosure in arbitration continues until order reflecting award (ON v ON)

Family analysis: His Honour Judge Booth (sitting as a High Court judge) has confirmed in the clearest terms that the duty of full and frank disclosure in financial remedy arbitrations endures until the court order reflecting the award is made. Although the wife in the case succeeded in her non-disclosure argument regarding the husband’s business, the result for her was ultimately Pyrrhic in light of the extent of her incurred costs and the way she had pursued other matters which were held not to be capable of producing a material difference on the outcome. Both parties’ approaches to the issues received judicial criticism. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues

President of the Family Division issues Practice Guidance: Transition of matters from the national Deprivation of Liberty (DOL) list to the Court of Protection

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has released Practice Guidance addressing the transition of cases from the national Deprivation of Liberty (DOL) list to the Court of Protection (either at its central registry or one of its seven regional hubs). This guidance addresses some of the practical and procedural aspects of cases involving 16 and 17-year-olds where further consideration by the Court of Protection is deemed necessary. The aim of the Practice Guidance is to ensure that the process around the transition of cases is understood and managed effectively by judiciary and court staff.