FRB v DCA (No. 3)

FRB v DCA (No. 3)

The applicant failed to provide prima facie evidence of a fundamental reduction in his wealth or liquidity to justify reopening or varying the lump sum order. The general economic impact of Covid-19, without specific evidence, is insufficient. The respondent is entitled to increased maintenance pending suit to incentivise payment, interest at 4% on the second tranche of the lump sum, and a legal services payment order, as she has no reasonable alternative funding and the applicant has the means to pay.

Parties
Applicant: FRB; Respondent: DCA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Application (matrimonial) / Post Judgment Applications for Variation, Enforcement, and Legal Services Order
Outcome
Applicant's application to vary or set aside the lump sum order dismissed; respondent's applications for increased maintenance, interest, and legal services payment order granted in part.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Variation of Lump Sum Orders, Maintenance Pending Suit, Legal Services Payment Order, Interest on Unpaid Lump Sums
Family Law Financial Remedies Variation of Lump Sum Orders Maintenance Pending Suit Legal Services Payment Order Interest on Unpaid Lump Sums

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FRB

Applicant

DCA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Application (matrimonial) / Post Judgment Applications for Variation, Enforcement, and Legal Services Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lump sum order should be varied or set aside due to alleged Barder event (Covid-19 economic impact)
  2. 2 Whether maintenance pending suit should be increased
  3. 3 Whether interest on unpaid lump sums should be increased

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide prima facie evidence of a fundamental reduction in his wealth or liquidity to justify reopening or varying the lump sum order. The general economic impact of Covid-19, without specific evidence, is insufficient. The respondent is entitled to increased maintenance pending suit to incentivise payment, interest at 4% on the second tranche of the lump sum, and a legal services payment order, as she has no reasonable alternative funding and the applicant has the means to pay.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application to vary or set aside the lump sum order dismissed; respondent's applications for increased maintenance, interest, and legal services payment order granted in part.

Orders

  • Applicant's application to vary or set aside the lump sum order is dismissed.
  • Maintenance pending suit increased by £1.2m per annum (in addition to existing order), backdated to 30 September 2020, pending further submissions on quantum and expenses.