Suter v Suter & Anor [1986] EWCA Civ 7 (19 December 1986)

Suter v Suter & Anor [1986] EWCA Civ 7 (19 December 1986)

The judge misdirected himself by treating the welfare of the children as paramount and by failing to apply the mandatory statutory test under section 25A(2). On the facts, the wife's cohabitation with Mr. Jones and his ability to contribute financially justified reducing the husband's periodical payments to a nominal sum. The capital transfers already made and the husband's maintenance for the children were sufficient to meet the needs of the wife and children. The husband's obligation to pay periodical payments to the wife should be reduced to a nominal £1 per year.

Citation
[1986] EWCA Civ 7
Parties
Appellant (petitioner): James Anthony Suter; Respondent (respondent): Pauline Ann Suter; Co Respondent: Steven Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 1986
Procedural Posture
Appeal From County Court (ancillary Relief in Matrimonial Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Periodical Payments, Clean Break Principle, Section 25 and 25 a Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Financial Provision After Divorce, Cohabitation and Financial Contribution, Welfare of Children
Family Law Ancillary Relief Periodical Payments Clean Break Principle Section 25 and 25 a Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Financial Provision After Divorce Cohabitation and Financial Contribution Welfare of Children

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 18
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Anthony Suter

Appellant (petitioner)

Pauline Ann Suter

Respondent (respondent)

Steven Jones

Co Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From County Court (ancillary Relief in Matrimonial Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper application of section 25 and 25A Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 as amended
  2. 2 Whether periodical payments to wife should be terminated or reduced in light of cohabitation with another man
  3. 3 Whether the welfare of the children is the paramount or first consideration under section 25(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge misdirected himself by treating the welfare of the children as paramount and by failing to apply the mandatory statutory test under section 25A(2). On the facts, the wife's cohabitation with Mr. Jones and his ability to contribute financially justified reducing the husband's periodical payments to a nominal sum. The capital transfers already made and the husband's maintenance for the children were sufficient to meet the needs of the wife and children. The husband's obligation to pay periodical payments to the wife should be reduced to a nominal £1 per year.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Husband's obligation to pay periodical payments to wife reduced to a nominal £1 per year
  • No order for costs