Fleming v Fleming [2003] EWCA Civ 1841 (17 November 2003)

Fleming v Fleming [2003] EWCA Civ 1841 (17 November 2003)

The judge at first instance erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the statutory obligation to terminate financial obligations where possible, especially given the parties' and court's original intention for a clean break and the wife's sufficient combined income with her cohabitee. The findings of financial hardship were unsupported by evidence and contradicted earlier factual findings.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1841
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Fleming; Respondent/claimant: Fleming
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Ancillary Relief (family Law) / Appeal From County Court Decision on Application to Extend Periodical Payments Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; application for extension of periodical payments dismissed.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Periodical Payments, Variation of Orders, Cohabitation, Clean Break Principle
Family Law Ancillary Relief Periodical Payments Variation of Orders Cohabitation Clean Break Principle

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fleming

Appellant/respondent

Fleming

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Ancillary Relief (family Law) / Appeal From County Court Decision on Application to Extend Periodical Payments Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wife was entitled to an extension of periodical payments after the expiry of the original term
  2. 2 Whether the judge at first instance erred in law or principle in granting the extension
  3. 3 Impact of cohabitation on entitlement to periodical payments

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the statutory obligation to terminate financial obligations where possible, especially given the parties' and court's original intention for a clean break and the wife's sufficient combined income with her cohabitee. The findings of financial hardship were unsupported by evidence and contradicted earlier factual findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; application for extension of periodical payments dismissed.

Orders

  • Wife's application for extension of periodical payments dismissed.
  • No reimbursement required for interim payments totalling £6,000 already made.