In recent years we’ve seen family court judges lean towards limiting awards of spousal maintenance in favour of what’s sometimes called  ‘a clean break divorce’.  These clean break orders involve each spouse dismissing all financial claims against the other once the divorce is finalised. To make up for ongoing spousal maintenance one party will usually agree to pay a lump sum or transfer property.

Against this backdrop of clean break financial orders it is also open to a spouse who has been ordered to pay maintenance under an old, open-ended court order to apply to change that order. The application is usually to:

  • Stop the payment of ongoing maintenance altogether;
  • Reduce the amount of maintenance payable; or
  • Limit the time during which maintenance will be payable.

Here we examine a 2023 case, WK v JC, where both husband and wife sought to change a periodical maintenance payment order that dated back 20 years to 2004. The case is a useful illustration of the increasingly prevalent view of family court judges that spouses should aim to be financially independent after their divorce and not seek to rely on regular long term maintenance payments from a former spouse.

WK v JC: Competing Claims To Alter 20-year-old Maintenance Order

Briefly the facts of the WK v JC case were as follows:

The wife aged 60, had devoted much of her life to bringing up her children. The judge indicated that she very much still sees herself in that role despite the children now being adults. The husband is a 67-year-old retired finance executive. The couple married in 1992 and the marriage broke down in 2002.

An order was made in 2004 for the sale of the then family home and division of the sale proceeds slightly in the wife’s favour. A spousal periodical payments order for life in favour of the wife was also made for £17,500 per year.

Fast forward to 2022 and both husband and wife made Form A applications –the wife seeking an increase in the maintenance payments, the husband seeking a decrease or a discharge of the maintenance order.

In terms of the law, the judge highlighted that:

  • The court cannot reopen capital claims (in relation to property and other assets). In cases like the current one judges can only consider whether the periodical maintenance payments ought to change and whether a lump sum instead of ongoing maintenance can be paid
  • In deciding whether to alter the maintenance payments judges must apply a needs-based assessment. Critically it is for the party in receipt of maintenance to justify the need for ongoing dependency and the continuation of financial provision
  • In making the needs-based assessment courts have a wide discretion as to whether to take into account any capital the person in receipt of maintenance has

Decision: Use Of Own Funds To Meet Needs

In this case the wife, apart from her investment income and maintenance payments also had several hundred thousand pounds of her own money. In deciding whether this pot of money should be taken into account when assessing her needs, the judge quoted an earlier judgment where Mostyn J had said:

 “I struggle to conceive of any case where in the assessment of the claimant’s needs it could be tenably argued that it was reasonable for her not to have to spend her own money in meeting them. After all, that is what the money is for”.

The wife’s capital of several hundred thousand mentioned above was a combination of money from the original divorce settlement and some inherited money. She presently generated £12,000 per annum from her investments. At 60, the judge noted the wife was significantly younger than the state pension age and was in reasonable health. He took the view that she could earn £10,000 per annum for a further six or seven years. Whether the wife decided to work or not was a matter for her.

In conclusion the judge ordered the husband to pay the wife a lump sum, reduced to reflect her personal capital and income and her earning capacity. Once the lump sum was paid the maintenance obligation would come to an end.

Comment

It’s sometimes thought that to vary maintenance orders there must be a significant change in circumstances. But in WK v JC this wasn’t necessarily the case. And yet the judgment was crystal clear. Through a combination of the wife using her own capital and income to meet her needs and payment of a lump sum, the maintenance order was stopped.

The law in this area is far from certain. Judges always have a high level of discretion depending on the facts of each case.  You should always seek legal advice – either if you want to stop paying maintenance or you want to increase or safeguard the maintenance you are receiving.

In closing it’s worth noting that we always impress upon clients the need to be aware of cost consequences in these types of proceedings. Indeed the judge in WK v JC lamented the significant cost to each party in bringing the proceedings at all. He expressed surprise and sadness that two:

 “such sensible and pleasant people as this husband and wife have been so unable to compromise their differences that they have felt the need to spend almost a quarter of a million in fighting each other. I am afraid this is one of these cases where, sadly, the costs probably outweigh the real parameters of the dispute.”

Got a question? Ask us now…

Kindly complete the form below to send an enquiry. Your message will be sent to one of our solicitors. Discretion is guaranteed.

Your Information

  • Consider including information such as: the name of your spouse (if relevant), the country you live in, the background to your problem.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Over 2000 FREE
consultations and counting…

Our free consultation can help you more clearly understand the legal issues relating your case and what your options are to move forward.

Request your free consultation

Or send us an enquiry

I had a 30-minute consultation with Samantha Jago where she clearly explained all my options and followed up with a detailed email of notes. I would highly recommend if you need help to clarify where you stand and getting options for how you move forward.

Jun 2024   Katherine Davey

I recently had a one hour pro bono consultation with Samantha Jago. I was really blown away by how much she was able to digest in such a short period of time and even more so by the report which I received shortly after.

Apr 2024   S DF

I had applied for a free consultation and I was contacted in a very short timeframe. Thank you so much for the insightful and thorough consultation, Kevin Danagher. You made me feel at ease and you provided clear expectations with the initial info I had provided... I have now a much better understanding on my query.

Feb 2024   Sonia Accardi

We had a very useful first consultation with Amber Matheson today. Amber took the time to understand our (somewhat complicated) set-up, and offered good, understandable advice on next steps. She followed up with a very thorough email clarifying what we had discussed. Highly recommended.

Feb 2024   Lucie

Lovely friendly experience. All questions were answered so that I understood completely.

Dec 2023   Ali Catlin

Very balanced, fair and pragmatic advice. Thoroughly recommend!!

Nov 2023   James Elliott

Henry graciously provided his time for a consultation. I found him to be highly knowledgeable, empathetic and he provided excellent advice which put my mind at ease. Would highly recommend Henry and his firm.

Oct 2023   Allan Ang

Henry Brookman went above and beyond during the free consultation, and even overran the allocated time. He provided invaluable professional advice in a courteous manner. I recommend his firm without reservation.

Sep 2023   Mario Ignatov

I only had my initial free review with Amelia yet I already feel much more strengthened in my legal and financial position. I am currently reflecting on the steps I want to take to negotiate my desired outcome of the financial settlement but, when I am ready to use the services of a lawyer, Amelia is definitely the top on my list.

Sep 2023   Nahid Toubia

I had a zoom consultation with Lauren Moir and she was incredible. Very patient, insightful and reassuring. She also advised me based on my previous conversations with another firm and also clarified various positions I am in. Highly recommend.

Aug 2023   Gary Hawes

I was very impressed with the friendly, helpful and professional service offered by Brookman Solicitors. The generous advice and knowledge offered during the initial free consultation has enabled us to have a much better understanding of our case and plan a way forward.

Jul 2023   Peter Jackson

I had a first consultation with Kevin, who very diligently and professionally provided an exhaustive overview of the divorce process and the best approach for my specific case.

Jul 2023   Giulia Matteo

Great service and excellent advice at the initial consultation. I would certainly recommend and use in the future.

Jul 2023   Tom James

Google Reviews
Ask A Question

Contact Us

If you have questions, contact us now, we can help you.

Enquire Now

Or call us on +44 (0)20 7430 8470