T v M [2013] EWHC 1585 (Fam) (23 April 2013)

T v M [2013] EWHC 1585 (Fam) (23 April 2013)

The district judge was not plainly wrong in concluding that there were no reasonable grounds for the husband's application to vary the maintenance order so soon after it was made. The judge had fully considered the arguments and evidence regarding the wife's earning capacity, and there was no significant change in circumstances or new evidence to justify reopening the matter. The high threshold for varying such a recent order was not met.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1585 (Fam)
Parties
Appellant: T; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Ancillary Relief/financial Remedy) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Application to Vary Maintenance Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Variation of Maintenance Orders, Strike Out Applications, Appellate Review
Family Law Ancillary Relief Variation of Maintenance Orders Strike Out Applications Appellate Review

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T

Appellant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Ancillary Relief/financial Remedy) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Application to Vary Maintenance Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the district judge was plainly wrong to strike out the husband's application to vary the maintenance order
  2. 2 Whether there were reasonable grounds for the husband's application to vary the maintenance order so soon after the original order

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge was not plainly wrong in concluding that there were no reasonable grounds for the husband's application to vary the maintenance order so soon after it was made. The judge had fully considered the arguments and evidence regarding the wife's earning capacity, and there was no significant change in circumstances or new evidence to justify reopening the matter. The high threshold for varying such a recent order was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order for costs against the husband is upheld.