Elliott v Elliott [2000] EWCA Civ 407 (20 December 2000)

Elliott v Elliott [2000] EWCA Civ 407 (20 December 2000)

The circuit judge erred in deleting the provision for the husband's capital entitlement upon the youngest child reaching 18 or completing tertiary education, as this unjustly delayed the husband's access to his share of matrimonial capital. The district judge's original order, which balanced the needs of the wife and children with the husband's entitlement, should be restored, save for the paragraph relating to the already-divided policy proceeds.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 407
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Alan Edward Elliott; Defendant/respondent: Janet Eileen Elliott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal (ancillary Relief) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Ancillary Relief Division of Matrimonial Assets Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Edward Elliott

Claimant/appellant

Janet Eileen Elliott

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (ancillary Relief) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the circuit judge erred in varying the district judge's order regarding the timing and conditions for the husband's receipt of his share of matrimonial capital
  2. 2 Whether the deletion of the provision for the husband's capital entitlement upon the youngest child reaching 18 or completing tertiary education was justified
  3. 3 Whether the allocation of 45% of the equity to the husband was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The circuit judge erred in deleting the provision for the husband's capital entitlement upon the youngest child reaching 18 or completing tertiary education, as this unjustly delayed the husband's access to his share of matrimonial capital. The district judge's original order, which balanced the needs of the wife and children with the husband's entitlement, should be restored, save for the paragraph relating to the already-divided policy proceeds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the district judge restored, except for paragraph 2 (relating to the United Friendly policy)
  • Counsel may submit an alternative draft of paragraph 3