Family:: English Fp

Front 1

What regulates the position for FP in england

Back 1

The MCA 1973 s21-40 and Sch 5 of the CPA 2004

Front 2

What does the MCA 1973 confer on the courts in terms of FP

Back 2

Powers to deal with the assets of parties listing a number of relevant factors, directing them to take 'all circumstances of the case into account.

Front 3

White v White 2000

Back 3

Any award given should not discriminate between husband and wife, and should be checked against the 'yardstick of equality'

Front 4

WCS
Any award given should not discriminate between husband and wife, and should be checked against the 'yardstick of equality'

Back 4

White v White 2000

Front 5

What is the effect of private ordering, generally?

Back 5

It is possible if both of the parties agree not to involve the court

Front 6

Radmacher v Granatino 2010

Back 6

Nuptial agreements should be given effect as long as they have been 'freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement'

Front 7

WCS Nuptial agreements should be given effect as long as they have been 'freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement'

Back 7

Radmacher v Granatino 2010

Front 8

What will be the effect of duress, fraud or misrepresentation on a nuptial contract?

Back 8

I will 'negate any effect the agreement might otherwise have'

Front 9

SA v PA 2014?

Back 9

Even if the information given to parties is deficient this may not be conclusive to not allowing nuptial contracts

Front 10

WCS
Even if the information given to parties is deficient this may not be conclusive to not allowing nuptial contracts

Back 10

SA v PA 2014?

Front 11

Soulsbury v Soulsbury 2007

Back 11

Agreements dealing with financial consequences of breakdown are enforceable.

Front 12

wcs
Agreements dealing with financial consequences of breakdown are enforceable.

Back 12

Soulsbury v Soulsbury 2007

Front 13

Edgar v Edgar 1980

Back 13

separation agreements will not be discarded just because the court may have been more generous, there must be a good reason to do so

Front 14

WCS
separation agreements will not be discarded just because the court may have been more generous, there must be a good reason to do so

Back 14

Edgar v Edgar 1980

Front 15

What are consent agreements

Back 15

the court enshrining post divorce agreements after scrutiny

Front 16

What orders may the court make upon financial provision

Back 16

1. Periodical payments (23.1.a)

2. Lump sums (s23.1.c)

3. Orders for the transfer or settlement of property (s24.1)

4.Orders relating to pensions

5. Sale orders (s24A)

Front 17

Duxbury v Duxbury 1987

Back 17

gives the equation used for lump sums

Front 18

what case gives the equation used for lump sums

Back 18

Duxbury v Duxbury 1987

Front 19

Miller v Miller; Macfarlane v Macfarlane in terms of courts' priorities

Back 19

There are three principles underlining the division of assets:

1. Needs

2. Compensation

3. Sharing

Front 20

Charman v Charman (no. 4) in terms of the hierarchy of principles?

Back 20

Needs should prevail if equal division would not meet the parties needs. Where the needs of the parties would be met by sufficient assets the sharing principle should apply. Compensation is underdeveloped.

Front 21

RP v RP 2006

Back 21

The principles in miller should not fetter the court's discretion.

Front 22

WCS The principles in miller should not fetter the court's discretion.

Back 22

RP v RP 2006

Front 23

What is the first consideration of the court?

Back 23

The welfare of children

Front 24

What regulates the first consideration?

Back 24

MCA 25.1

Front 25

What is stated by MCA s25.1

Back 25

The first consideration is the welfare of any child under 18

Front 26

Akintola v Akintola 2002

Back 26

The first consideration should not be given weight as to me is 'something unacceptably high'

Front 27

WCS The first consideration should not be given weight as to me is 'something unacceptably high'

Back 27

Akintola v Akintola 2002

Front 28

To whom does the first consideration apply

Back 28

Any children who have been treated as children of the family

Front 29

What regulates non-exhaustive areas which the court should regard in looking into 'all the circumstances'

Back 29

s25 (2) MCA

Front 30

What must the court look into under s 25.2

Back 30

1. Resources

2.Needs

3. Standard of living

4. the age of parties

5. Disablities

6. Contributions

7. Conduct

8. Loss of benefits due to the divorce

Front 31

Piglowska v piglowski

Back 31

The 1973 act does not rank considerations, the weight each is given is fact dependent.

Front 32

WCS The 1973 act does not rank considerations, the weight each is given is fact dependent.

Back 32

Piglowska v piglowski

Front 33

B v b 2002

Back 33

The mother was given full title to the MH due to the first consideration and the burden of childcare

Front 34

What assets, generally, are relevant in a FP application

Back 34

All.

Front 35

Leadbeater v leadbeater

Back 35

A lump sum was ordered for the wife due to

Front 36

Petrodel v prest 2013

Back 36

Property owned by Hs company coupd be MP due to it being seen as being held in trust for him and therefore the source of funds were relevant.

Front 37

What is the meaning of other resources under 25.2.a

Back 37

All resources

Front 38

Wyatt v vincr 2015

Back 38

Other resources may include property inherited during marriage

Front 39

Wcs MP can include property i herited during marriage

Back 39

Wyatt v vince 2015

Front 40

White v white 2000 per inheritance

Back 40

Inheritance may be relevant in deciding whether it is MP

Front 41

Wcs inheritance may be relevant in deciding whether it is MP

Back 41

White v white 2000

Front 42

B V B 2008

Back 42

Equality was not the starting point, the financial positions of the family is. Fairness would be done on the facts of the case

Front 43

Wcs Equality was not the starting point, the financial positions of the family is. Fairness would be done on the facts of the case

Back 43

B V B 2008

Front 44

Norris v norris 2002

Back 44

The court may take into accouny gifts and successions as contributions to the family

Front 45

WCS The court may take into accouny gifts and successions as contributions to the family

Back 45

Norris v norris 2002

Front 46

How are needs to be determined under 25.2.b

Back 46

Subjectively

Front 47

What standard of living is the be expected after breakdown under 25.2.c

Back 47

Less than that during the marriage

Front 48

Mcartney v Mills 2008

Back 48

It cannot be expected that parties will have the same standard of living after the breakdown of marriage

Front 49

It cannot be expected that parties will have the same standard of living after the breakdown of marriage

Back 49

Mcartney v Mills 2008

Front 50

What difference does the age of parties to the marriage make under 25.2.d

Back 50

Younger parties may be deemed to have a better ability to find future employment

Front 51

How may the duration of the marriage be seen under 25.2.d

Back 51

Cohabitation may be relevant but merely being in a relationship will not

Front 52

What is the effect of short marriages under 25.2.d

Back 52

The shorter the marriage the less likely inheritance or assets accrued before marriagr will be taken account of

Front 53

C v C 1995

Back 53

Damages in a personal injury claim were not MP due to the future care needs of the claimant, H

Front 54

WCS Damages in a personal injury claim were not MP due to the future care needs of the claimant, H

Back 54

CvC 1995

Front 55

White v white per contributions under 25.2.f

Back 55

It matters not which party earned money and built up assets if each contributed equally to the marriage

Front 56

WCS It matters not which party earned money and built up assets if each contributed equally to the marriage

Back 56

White v White 2000

Front 57

Sorrell v sorrell 2005

Back 57

Exceptional circumstances amounted to a special contribution meaning an unequal division was allowed under 25.2.f

Front 58

WCS Exceptional circumstances amounted to a special contribution meaning an unequal division was allowed under 25.2.f

Back 58

Sorrell v sorrell 2005

Front 59

AR v AR 2011

Back 59

It is to be assumed that both parties made equal contributions which may be rebutted under 25.2.f

Front 60

WCS It is to be assumed that both parties made equal contributions which may be rebutted under 25.2.f

Back 60

AR v AR 2011

Front 61

Watchel v Watchel 1973

Back 61

The conduct of the parties may only be taken into account where it is obvious and gross. This means more than responsible for the breakdown.

Front 62

WCS The conduct of the parties may only be taken into account where it is obvious and gross. This means more than responsible for the breakdown.

Back 62

Watchel v watchel 1973

Front 63

Evans v evans 1989

Back 63

W contracting the killing of H was seen as relevant conduct under 25.2.g

Front 64

WCS W contracting the killing of H was seen as relevant conduct under 25.2.g

Back 64

Evans v evans 1989

Front 65

Minton v Minton 1979

Back 65

The court ahould desire a clean break where possible

Front 66

WCS The court ahould desire a clean break where possible

Back 66

Minton v Minton 1979

Front 67

What powers and duties are contained in seeking a clean break

Back 67

1. The duty to consider the termination of financial obligations

2. The duty to consider specitfying a term for periodical payments

3.power to direct that no application be made to extend specific terms

4. The power to dismiss a claim for periodical payments

Front 68

What is regulated by s31 mca 1973

Back 68

The court may vary periodical payments orders which already exist.

Front 69

What must be looked into in varying a periodical payment order

Back 69

All the circumstances at the time of the application