Grey v Grey

In assessing the effect of a new relationship on periodical payments, cohabitation is not equivalent to marriage and does not automatically terminate or reduce maintenance to a nominal sum. The court must make a fact-specific assessment of the relationship, including its stability, commitment, domestic arrangements and financial consequences. The relevant question is what the new partner fairly ought to contribute, having regard to his means and capacity, rather than merely what he actually contributes. The payer’s obligation remains relevant to the recipient’s and child’s appropriate standard of living. On variation, increased income may justify increased maintenance, but the statutory discretion must be exercised broadly and fairly on the facts.

The judgment followed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Grey v Grey [2009] EWCA Civ 1424, which had allowed the husband’s appeal and remitted the issue of the wife’s spousal periodical payments. The court had to assess the nature and development of the wife’s relationship with Liam Thompson, the contribution he should fairly make to her domestic economy, whether he should be treated as required to dispose of his separate home, and the effect of the husband’s increased earnings. It also considered whether the husband’s payments should be reduced to a nominal order and whether the wife’s payments should be increased.

1. Relationship assessment. The court assessed the relationship over time and concluded that it had become a committed partnership from November 2007. The assessment was necessarily fact-specific. Labels such as cohabitation, domestic partnership and living together have imprecise boundaries. Mutual commitment was an important indicator when determining whether financial responsibility should be attributed to the new partner.
2. Effect on maintenance. Cohabitation was not to be equated with marriage. It was a relevant factor bearing particularly on the wife’s financial needs, but it did not automatically extinguish the former husband’s liability or justify reduction to a nominal order. The court had to assess what the new partner could and fairly should contribute, rather than simply identify his actual payments.
3. Means and domestic arrangements. It was inappropriate to assess the new partner’s contribution on the assumption that he would sell or rent out his separate home. The relationship fell short of full cohabitation, and the assessment had to respect his continuing separate establishment while taking account of the financial benefits arising from the partnership.
4. Quantum and variation. Applying a broad approach, the court assessed the fair contribution at €55,000 for December 2007 to December 2009 and €16,000 annually thereafter. The husband’s maintenance was reduced to reflect that contribution, with appropriate allowance for tax. His increased earnings did not justify increasing the baseline provision because the wife’s household would continue to receive approximately the level previously regarded as fair. Child maintenance was increased to €27,500 annually, with a corresponding tax-efficient reduction in spousal maintenance.
5. The matter was to be embodied in an order after outstanding calculations and consequential questions had been resolved. The time for seeking permission to appeal was extended until after that hearing.

• Court of Appeal: The appeal in Grey v Grey [2009] EWCA Civ 1424 was allowed and the spousal periodical-payment orders were set aside insofar as necessary for reassessment.
• High Court (Family Division): The remitted variation applications were determined by reassessing the new partner’s fair contribution, varying the maintenance arrangements and increasing child maintenance.