H v GH

H v GH

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant a two-year extension for payment of the lump sum, as such an extension is not 'modest' and would undermine the principle of finality in financial remedy proceedings. Section 31(2)(dd) does not apply, and the inherent jurisdiction is limited to short, modest extensions. Even if jurisdiction existed, the applicant's commercial decisions and the lack of compelling equitable grounds mean the extension would not be granted.

Parties
Applicant: H; Respondent: GH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Family / Application to Vary Lump Sum Payment Date; Strike Out Application
Outcome
variation application struck out for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent
Legal Topics
Variation of Lump Sum Order, Jurisdiction to Extend Time for Payment, Financial Remedies, Costs Assessment
Family Law Variation of Lump Sum Order Jurisdiction to Extend Time for Payment Financial Remedies Costs Assessment

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

Parties

H

Applicant

GH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Application to Vary Lump Sum Payment Date; Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of a lump sum under section 23(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973?
  2. 2 Is a two-year extension a 'modest' extension within the court's inherent jurisdiction?
  3. 3 Is the variation application a collateral attack on a previous possession order?

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant a two-year extension for payment of the lump sum, as such an extension is not 'modest' and would undermine the principle of finality in financial remedy proceedings. Section 31(2)(dd) does not apply, and the inherent jurisdiction is limited to short, modest extensions. Even if jurisdiction existed, the applicant's commercial decisions and the lack of compelling equitable grounds mean the extension would not be granted.

Court Disposition

variation application struck out for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

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