J v J

Periodical payments must be determined by reference to all the circumstances and the statutory factors, not by applying a rigid ceiling based on needs or reasonable requirements. However, where capital provision has already been made, periodical payments should generally provide maintenance rather than enable the recipient to accumulate further capital. That principle may yield where fairness and the particular circumstances require it. The court must balance the payee’s needs, contributions and standard of living against the payer’s resources, responsibilities and future earning prospects. Capital claims finally compromised by order cannot later be reopened through an award of periodical payments.

The former wife applied for periodical payments for herself and the parties’ three children. At a financial dispute resolution hearing, the parties had agreed capital provision in full and final satisfaction of their capital claims. The wife received two mortgage-free properties and a lump sum of £250,000. Maintenance pending suit had been agreed at £100,000 per annum globally.

The wife sought global periodical payments of £444,000 per annum, based principally on a proportion of the husband’s substantial net income as a professional footballer. The husband offered £120,000 per annum. The issues were the proper application of the statutory factors, the significance of the wife’s domestic and supportive contributions, the effect of the prior capital settlement, and whether periodical payments could properly include an element enabling further capital accumulation.

1. Legal framework. In exercising the powers under sections 23(1)(a) and (d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court had to consider all the circumstances, giving first consideration to the welfare of the children, and in particular the matters in section 25(2). The court could give such weight to each factor as it considered appropriate. Needs or reasonable requirements were not a determinative or limiting factor where the payer could afford more.
2. Fairness and equality. The statutory exercise required a fair outcome without discrimination between the money-earner and the home-maker or child-carer. The wife had made a significant contribution to the household, the children and the husband’s development and success. That contribution had to be recognised, but it did not justify mechanically awarding her the same proportion of the husband’s income as the proportion of capital she had received.
3. Capital finality. Capital claims compromised and approved by order could not be revisited or reissued. Periodical payments should generally provide maintenance and should not be used to distribute further capital. That was a significant factor, but not an inflexible rule where the circumstances made a different result necessary.
4. Application. The wife’s needs, generously assessed, were substantially below £180,000 per annum for herself and the children. The husband’s offer of £120,000 was unfairly low in the circumstances, but the wife’s claim for £444,000 would generate substantial further capital and would undermine the finality of the agreed capital settlement. A global award of £250,000 per annum was fair. It was to be divided between the wife and children as agreed or, failing agreement, as the court directed, and was intended to run from 24 March 2003, subject to any further submissions on backdating. Provision for the children was to run for the conventional period and provision for the wife for joint lives, remarriage or further order.

First-instance determination of the wife’s application for periodical payments. The judgment records that the parties’ capital claims had previously been compromised and approved at an FDR, but no lower-court decision is identified.