Lec 2- s.25(1) (2) MCA 1973 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Lec 2- s.25(1) (2) MCA 1973 PDF

Description

S. 25 (1) AND S.25(2)(A) AND (B) MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT 1973

- looking at the factors the courts take into account under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 9 FACTORS LISTED IN S.25 MCA (SCHEDULE 5, PARA 20 AND 21 CPA 2004 HAS SIMILAR PROVISIONS) 1.

S.25(1)

-Stability for the family is key, eg-stay in home. Meaning resident carer needs to be provided for. Miller:McFarlane [2006]- the invariable practice in English law is to try to maintain a stable hoe for the children after the parent’s divorce -May mean there is little money left for the other parent B v B [2002] -But may be contrary to the child’s interest to live in difficult circumstances -RK v RK [2011]- not in their interest in children for too much disparity of living standards ‘FIRST’



it is not the same as paramount- Suter v Suter and Jones [1987] consideration of all circumstances including those specified in s.25(2) only applied to ‘children of the family’ s.52- includes step children but doesn’t extend to children born after the breakdown of marriage under 18, those over 18 are still considered in the circumstances

2.

s.25 (2) a (Paragraph 21 lists 8 factors to be considered)

 

-people also have debt H v H [2008] – broad brush of their assets it is no to mathematical accuracy

‘EARNING CAPACITY’ -one party has helped other’s earning capacity by enabling other for career -one party has not worked -parents of very young children

- ‘any increase in earning capacity which is would be reasonable to expect the other the acquire’ COURT WILL ONLY BE INTERESTED IN ‘CERTAIN’ FUTURE RESOURCES -

Inherence is generally uncertain Some pensions are

ALL ASSETS OF THE PARTIES ARE CONSIDERED -looks at assets created during marriage and outside marriage (matrimonial- within marriage, nonmatrimonial- brought in to marriage or acquired post marriage) - not in the act it is a case-law basis -wages -insurance properties -inheritance -pension S v AG[2011]- includes lottery wins Schuller v Schuller[1990]- where inherited wealth after separation was taken into account

INCOME OF A NEW PARTNER -

When party remarries, the first spouse is no longer required to pay financial support but the answer is less clear if they cohabit

Re Grey (no 3) [2010]- husband’s contribution was reduced as his ex wife had a new partner Grey v Grey [2009]- court will take into account what the partner should be contributing. Pearce v Pearce [1980]- #Practical approach of courts. The word "resources" in s. 25 is entirely unqualified, there are no words of limitation upon it, and so the court should approach the matter realistically, taking into account all the available resources and doing justice in all the circumstances of the case between the spouses in a realistic fashion, dealing with real figures and not with artificially produced figures.’

3.

S.25(2) b

•

Subjective

Generally, what a person’s needs are is fairly subjective so the courts have given a wide interpretation to the section and as we will see, what a person’s needs are will

relate to the lifestyle they had during the marriage. •

Housing is a priority

•

In big money cases the court needs to look at the reasonable requirements of the parties.

‘Needs’ to one party might not be ‘needs’ to another. In big money cases the word ‘need’ is replaced by the words ‘reasonable requirements’ •

In Robson v Robson [2010] the court took into account the wife’s wish to keep horses

Needs may include -finances of elderly relatives -debts incurred before the marriage -any contributing future expenses -balancing needs of new family

S v S [2001]- consideration sof a new family could be taken into account to justify departure from equality H-J v H-J [2002] principles in S v S was incorrect...