G v G (Periodical Payments)

A spouse’s periodical payments order expires when the specified term expires. There is then no continuing order capable of variation under section 31. The words or further order do not preserve an expired order or permit a later application to revive it. Unless a direction under section 28(1A) excludes an extension, an application must be made before expiry.

Section 23(1)(d) permits payments both to a child and to a parent for the child’s benefit. The court may allocate reasonable household costs during full-time university education according to the parents’ means. Costs remain discretionary.

Following a long marriage, the parties agreed a deferred clean-break arrangement in 1989. The wife received periodical payments until specified events, including the child Camilla reaching 18, or further order. The order contained no direction under section 28(1A).

After Camilla reached 18, the wife applied to vary and extend her maintenance. The husband argued that the term had expired and that the court had no jurisdiction. District Judge Cushing made staged and nominal provision for the wife and dismissed the claim for Camilla. Hale J allowed the husband’s appeal on the wife’s claim, upheld provision for Camilla and awarded the wife indemnity costs. The Court of Appeal heard the wife’s appeal and the husband’s cross-appeals.

Disposition. Lord Justice Ward delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Potter agreeing. The wife’s appeal was dismissed. The husband’s cross-appeal was dismissed except that the indemnity costs order was replaced by an order for the wife’s costs to be taxed on the standard basis.

1. The statutory scheme distinguishes a child periodical payments order, which may be made from time to time, from the single periodical payments order available in favour of a spouse. On the proper construction of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a spouse’s order ends when its specified term expires. Section 31 operates on an existing continuing order and cannot revive an order which has ceased.
2. The words or further order do not leave an expired order in suspense. The Court followed the reasoning in Minton v Minton [1979] A.C. 593 and T v T (Financial Provision) [1988] 1 FLR 480. The latter decision was on facts equivalent to the present case. An application to extend must therefore be made before the term expires. Ward LJ added that an order should probably also be made before expiry, and that a nominal interim order could preserve the position pending argument. He suggested that practitioners consider nominal provision where appropriate.
3. Section 23(1)(d) was wide enough to permit payments directly to Camilla and payments to the mother for Camilla’s benefit. These were not impermissible duplicate orders. Direct payments could provide an older child with personal control of an allowance, while payment to the parent could meet the household costs of maintaining the child.
4. The judge was entitled to assess Camilla’s needs by reference to the parents’ means, her university education, her medical needs and the cost of maintaining a home. The husband’s substantial means and the broad figures put forward by him justified the order. In the particular circumstances, a minute breakdown of household expenditure was unnecessary.
5. It was within the judge’s discretion to award the wife her costs. The jurisdiction point had been raised very late, and the wife had succeeded on the substantial issue concerning Camilla. The indemnity basis was nevertheless replaced by the standard basis.

The Court also criticised the unnecessary copying of extensive irrelevant financial material and invited consideration of whether the associated costs should be disallowed.

• Court of Appeal: dismissed the wife’s appeal and dismissed the husband’s cross-appeal except as to the basis of costs.
• Family Division, Hale J: allowed the husband’s appeal on the wife’s periodical payments claim, upheld provision for Camilla and awarded the wife indemnity costs.
• District Judge Cushing: varied the wife’s periodical payments by staged and nominal orders and dismissed the claim for periodical payments for Camilla.