X v Y

X v Y

The court dismissed Mr X's application to vary the capital provision because the parties' claims had been dismissed and were not live before the court, so there was no jurisdiction to vary the order under Thwaite. Even if there were jurisdiction, the reduction in property value was not a sufficiently significant change to render it inequitable to enforce the order. The only variation permitted was to the sale price mechanism under s.24A(2) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Parties
Applicant: X; Respondent: Y
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Family / Post Final Order; Application to Set Aside/vary Capital Provision and Strike Out Application
Outcome
Mr X's application to vary the capital provision is dismissed; Mrs Y's application to strike out is overtaken by events and no order is made on it; paragraph 17b of the order is varied as to the sale price mechanism.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Variation of Orders, Executory Orders, Jurisdiction to Vary, Thwaite Jurisdiction, Barder Principles
Family Law Financial Remedies Variation of Orders Executory Orders Jurisdiction to Vary Thwaite Jurisdiction Barder Principles

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant

Y

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Post Final Order; Application to Set Aside/vary Capital Provision and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to vary an executory financial remedy order under the Thwaite jurisdiction after dismissal of claims
  2. 2 Whether a reduction in property value constitutes a significant change of circumstances justifying variation of the order
  3. 3 Whether it would be inequitable to enforce the existing order given the change in property value

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed Mr X's application to vary the capital provision because the parties' claims had been dismissed and were not live before the court, so there was no jurisdiction to vary the order under Thwaite. Even if there were jurisdiction, the reduction in property value was not a sufficiently significant change to render it inequitable to enforce the order. The only variation permitted was to the sale price mechanism under s.24A(2) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Court Disposition

Mr X's application to vary the capital provision is dismissed; Mrs Y's application to strike out is overtaken by events and no order is made on it; paragraph 17b of the order is varied as to the sale price mechanism.

Orders

  • Mr X's application to vary the capital provision is dismissed.
  • No order on Mrs Y's application to strike out.