Grey v Grey

Grey v Grey

The trial judge failed to make adequate findings of fact regarding the wife's cohabitation and did not properly investigate the financial consequences of her relationship with Mr Thompson. The judge misapplied the law by not discounting the periodical payments to reflect the new relationship, as required by established authority. The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for further investigation and judgment on the financial impact of the cohabitation.

Parties
Appellant: Richard John Paul Grey; Respondent: Lara Jane Grey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (ancillary Relief/financial Provision) / Appeal Judgment With Remittal for Further Fact Finding
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for further investigation and judgment
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Periodical Payments, Cohabitation, Variation of Maintenance, Financial Provision on Divorce
Family Law Ancillary Relief Periodical Payments Cohabitation Variation of Maintenance Financial Provision on Divorce

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard John Paul Grey

Appellant

Lara Jane Grey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (ancillary Relief/financial Provision) / Appeal Judgment With Remittal for Further Fact Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in failing to make adequate findings of fact regarding the wife's cohabitation and its financial consequences
  2. 2 Whether the judge misapplied the law regarding the impact of post-separation cohabitation on periodical payments
  3. 3 Whether the law requires substantive maintenance to cease upon cohabitation

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge failed to make adequate findings of fact regarding the wife's cohabitation and did not properly investigate the financial consequences of her relationship with Mr Thompson. The judge misapplied the law by not discounting the periodical payments to reflect the new relationship, as required by established authority. The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for further investigation and judgment on the financial impact of the cohabitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted for further investigation and judgment

Orders

  • Remitted to Singer J for further investigation of Mr Thompson's financial circumstances and assessment of his capacity to contribute to the wife's economy
  • Singer J to determine appropriate discount or variation to periodical payments, with power to backdate any reduction to November 2006