F -v- G (Matrimonial) [2012] JRC 215 (16 November 2012)

F -v- G (Matrimonial) [2012] JRC 215 (16 November 2012)

The Court found that both parties' financial circumstances were constrained, with the petitioner’s resources limited to the K Trust (a pre-marriage asset providing her and the children with a home) and the respondent’s resources limited to the W Trust (reflecting his pre-marriage assets). The B Settlement, a discretionary trust, was not a resource realistically available to the petitioner. The respondent’s claim for a lump sum was dismissed as unjustified. Child maintenance was set at £300 per month per child, subject to annual RPI review. No spousal maintenance or lump sum was ordered. Costs were reserved for later determination.

Citation
[2012] JRC 215
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
16 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (financial) Proceedings Following Divorce / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Child maintenance ordered; spousal maintenance and lump sum dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Child Maintenance, Spousal Maintenance, Trusts and Resources, Lump Sum Applications, Costs
Family Law Ancillary Relief Child Maintenance Spousal Maintenance Trusts and Resources Lump Sum Applications Costs

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

Parties

Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (financial) Proceedings Following Divorce / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate level of child maintenance
  2. 2 Whether maintenance should be subject to annual increase
  3. 3 Whether nominal spousal maintenance should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that both parties' financial circumstances were constrained, with the petitioner’s resources limited to the K Trust (a pre-marriage asset providing her and the children with a home) and the respondent’s resources limited to the W Trust (reflecting his pre-marriage assets). The B Settlement, a discretionary trust, was not a resource realistically available to the petitioner. The respondent’s claim for a lump sum was dismissed as unjustified. Child maintenance was set at £300 per month per child, subject to annual RPI review. No spousal maintenance or lump sum was ordered. Costs were reserved for later determination.

Court Disposition

Child maintenance ordered; spousal maintenance and lump sum dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay petitioner £300 per month per child, subject to annual RPI review, until each child reaches 16 (or ceases full-time education, whichever later) for the elder child, and 18 (or ceases full-time education, whichever later) for the younger child.
  • No order for spousal maintenance.