H v GH [2023] EWFC 235 (07 December 2023)

H v GH [2023] EWFC 235 (07 December 2023)

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant a two-year extension for payment of the lump sum because such an extension is not 'modest' and would go to the heart of the order, undermining the principle of finality in financial remedy proceedings. The statutory power to vary does not apply, and the inherent jurisdiction is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWFC 235
Parties
Applicant: H; Respondent: GH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Family Financial Remedy / Application to Vary Date for Payment of Lump Sum; Cross Application to Strike Out
Outcome
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded against applicant.
Legal Topics
Variation of Lump Sum Order, Jurisdiction to Extend Time for Payment, Financial Remedies, Costs in Family Proceedings
Family Law Variation of Lump Sum Order Jurisdiction to Extend Time for Payment Financial Remedies Costs in Family Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Applicant

GH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Financial Remedy / Application to Vary Date for Payment of Lump Sum; Cross Application to Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of a lump sum under a financial remedy order by a significant period?
  2. 2 Is the application to extend time a collateral attack on a possession order?
  3. 3 Should the court exercise discretion to grant a two-year extension for payment of the lump sum?

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant a two-year extension for payment of the lump sum because such an extension is not 'modest' and would go to the heart of the order, undermining the principle of finality in financial remedy proceedings. The statutory power to vary does not apply, and the inherent jurisdiction is limited to slight or modest extensions only.

Court Disposition

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • Variation Application struck out
  • Applicant to pay respondent's costs on the standard basis, summarily assessed