AZ v FM (Rev 1)

AZ v FM (Rev 1)

The court has jurisdiction under s.31(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to discharge a child maintenance order and award a lump sum in lieu of future periodic payments for the benefit of a child. The trial judge's findings of fact regarding disclosure and income were not open to appellate interference. The division of the CGT fund was correct, with only the husband's half credited against the lump sum. The husband's appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the wife.

Parties
Appellant: AZ; Respondent: FM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Variation of Maintenance Orders, Capitalisation of Child Maintenance, Costs in Appeals
Family Law Child Maintenance Variation of Maintenance Orders Capitalisation of Child Maintenance Costs in Appeals

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AZ

Appellant

FM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Jurisdiction to capitalise child maintenance under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
  2. 2 Correct calculation of commutation lump sum
  3. 3 Division of CGT fund

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction under s.31(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to discharge a child maintenance order and award a lump sum in lieu of future periodic payments for the benefit of a child. The trial judge's findings of fact regarding disclosure and income were not open to appellate interference. The division of the CGT fund was correct, with only the husband's half credited against the lump sum. The husband's appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the wife.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Renewed permission application in respect of Grounds 1 and 3 refused and certified as totally without merit
  • Appeal on Ground 2 dismissed