Smith v Smith

Smith v Smith

The District Judge erred in awarding the wife both a capital provision and lifetime periodical payments, amounting to double counting and an excessive share of the resources, especially given the source and nature of the assets and the relatively short marriage. The Circuit Judge failed to address the husband's specific criticisms. A clean break is justified and achievable, with the wife's security in the business premises to be limited and crystallised by a capital payment within a set period.

Parties
Appellant: Anthony Smith; Respondent: Heather Ann Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (ancillary Relief / Financial Remedy) / Appeal From Circuit Judge (second Appeal) With Substantive Re Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; lower court orders set aside in part; substituted order made
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Financial Remedy, Clean Break, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Periodical Payments
Family Law Ancillary Relief Financial Remedy Clean Break Division of Matrimonial Assets Periodical Payments

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Smith

Appellant

Heather Ann Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (ancillary Relief / Financial Remedy) / Appeal From Circuit Judge (second Appeal) With Substantive Re Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge's order on division of assets and periodical payments was plainly wrong
  2. 2 Whether the Circuit Judge failed to address the appellant's specific criticisms of the District Judge's order
  3. 3 Appropriateness of a clean break versus ongoing financial entanglement

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred in awarding the wife both a capital provision and lifetime periodical payments, amounting to double counting and an excessive share of the resources, especially given the source and nature of the assets and the relatively short marriage. The Circuit Judge failed to address the husband's specific criticisms. A clean break is justified and achievable, with the wife's security in the business premises to be limited and crystallised by a capital payment within a set period.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; lower court orders set aside in part; substituted order made

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the District Judge's order deleted and replaced: the wife to hold shares in Kerala Ltd as security, with no rent due, and to transfer them back to the husband upon payment of £180,000 by 1 January 2009; if not paid, wife free to deal with shares and assets as she sees fit.
  • Periodical payments to wife at £18,000 per annum (£1,500 per month) until capital payment or specified events; order then dismissed and claim discharged.