S v S [2009] NIMaster 63 (30 January 2009)

S v S [2009] NIMaster 63 (30 January 2009)

The court has no power to vary downwards a lump sum order payable in one instalment. The collapse in property prices, though unforeseen, does not constitute grounds to reopen a final settlement where the valuation was agreed and no misrepresentation or non-disclosure occurred. The Respondent did not act expeditiously or accept reasonable offers, and the conditions for leave to appeal out of time are not satisfied.

Citation
[2009] NIMaster 63
Parties
Petitioner: S; Respondent: S
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
30 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (matrimonial) / Post Settlement Applications; Hearing Before Master
Outcome
All three prongs of the Respondent's application are dismissed.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Variation of Lump Sum Order, Finality of Settlements, Effect of Change in Property Values
Family Law Ancillary Relief Variation of Lump Sum Order Finality of Settlements Effect of Change in Property Values

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

Parties

S

Petitioner

S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (matrimonial) / Post Settlement Applications; Hearing Before Master

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lump sum order payable in one instalment can be varied downwards due to a fall in property values
  2. 2 Whether an unforeseen event (collapse in property prices) justifies reopening a matrimonial settlement
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no power to vary downwards a lump sum order payable in one instalment. The collapse in property prices, though unforeseen, does not constitute grounds to reopen a final settlement where the valuation was agreed and no misrepresentation or non-disclosure occurred. The Respondent did not act expeditiously or accept reasonable offers, and the conditions for leave to appeal out of time are not satisfied.

Court Disposition

All three prongs of the Respondent's application are dismissed.

Orders

  • Matter adjourned for one month to deal with the Petitioner’s application for consequential directions and to consider time for appeal and costs.