Matthews v Matthews

In financial remedy proceedings, the court must consider a clean break as an initial consideration under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25A(1). A nominal spousal maintenance order is not required merely because dependent children live with the recipient or future employment is uncertain. The judge’s assessment of earning capacity may incorporate foreseeable employment difficulties, even if each difficulty is not separately stated. An appellate court should not interfere with a discretionary financial settlement unless it is wrong in principle or plainly wrong. It should also consider the interrelationship between the challenged order and the wider asset, debt, income and needs assessment.

The parties had cohabited from 2006, married in June 2009, separated in February 2010 and divorced in 2012. They had two dependent children, who lived with the wife. The parties owned four mortgaged flats and had substantial debts.

Mostyn J made financial remedy orders transferring property, requiring a lump-sum payment and providing child maintenance. He declined to make a nominal periodical payments order for the wife, relying on the statutory steer towards a clean break and his assessment that her earning capacity exceeded the husband’s. The wife appealed, arguing that the judge had failed to account for the risk that she might be unable to obtain stable, full-time employment during the children’s minority.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge had been entitled to refuse nominal spousal maintenance and to favour a clean break.
2. Section 25A(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 requires the court to consider whether financial obligations between former spouses should be terminated as soon after the grant of the decree as is just and reasonable. It creates a clear statutory steer towards a clean break, including lump-sum and property-adjustment orders without continuing periodical payments. It does not make a clean break automatic.
3. The evidence about the wife’s employment difficulties, adverse credit rating and periods of unemployment had been prominent before the judge. His finding that her earning capacity was about £40,000 gross showed that those matters had been taken into account. The absence of an express reference to every risk did not establish an error of principle.
4. The refusal to make a nominal order was not wrong in principle or plainly wrong. S v B (Ancillary Relief: Costs) illustrated that different judges may reasonably reach different conclusions about whether to preserve a possible future claim. Another judge’s preference would not justify appellate intervention.
5. Where a first-instance financial settlement has followed a careful assessment of debts, assets, earning potential and needs, the appellate court should consider the interrelationship of the settlement’s components before interfering with any individual order.

Lewison LJ and Richards LJ agreed with Tomlinson LJ’s reasons. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against the financial remedy order of Mostyn J dated 15 April 2013 was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Mostyn J made the financial remedy order and refused nominal spousal maintenance for the wife.