M v M

M v M

The judge erred in principle by failing to provide reasoning for leaving the wife unable to meet her basic needs, despite accepting her needs budget and finding the husband able to pay; the periodical payments should be increased to £1,441 per month.

Parties
Applicant: M; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; husband's application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Variation of Periodical Payments, Financial Provision on Divorce, Clean Break Orders
Family Law Variation of Periodical Payments Financial Provision on Divorce Clean Break Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the periodical payments order should be varied to meet the wife's basic needs
  2. 2 Whether the husband's application for permission to appeal should be re-opened

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in principle by failing to provide reasoning for leaving the wife unable to meet her basic needs, despite accepting her needs budget and finding the husband able to pay; the periodical payments should be increased to £1,441 per month.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; husband's application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Order set aside; substituted order for periodical payments of £1,441 per calendar month until further order.
  • Application to re-open husband's permission to appeal refused.