Chiva v Chiva

In financial remedy appeals, the Court of Appeal should not substitute its own assessment where the judge applied the correct approach and reached an outcome within the reasonable range. Equal capital division may be upheld where the parties have comparable housing needs and the recipient can obtain suitable accommodation using the award and available borrowing. A periodical payments award should be disturbed only if it falls outside that reasonable range. A fixed term may be justified where the recipient can reasonably increase earnings and move towards independence. A later application under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 remains available if supported by evidence.

A divorced husband and wife appealed against a financial remedy order made by HHJ Harris in the Principal Registry of the Family Division. The order divided the available capital unequally after taking account of money transferred to the wife's father, awarded the wife £700 per month for 24 months, and provided for a clean break thereafter. The wife challenged the treatment of property, alleged gifts, legal costs, capital needs, the amount and duration of maintenance, and the time for filing the appeal. The central issues were whether the judge had exceeded the proper range of discretion and whether the wife required greater capital or longer maintenance.

1. Procedural matters. The 21-day period for filing an appellant’s notice runs from the lower court’s decision rather than the later issue of the order, relying on Sayers v Clarke Walker [2002] EWCA Civ 645. The court concluded that no extension was necessary, but granted any extension required.
2. Capital provision. The judge was entitled to disregard the negative equity in the two student flats because they produced a rental profit and were unlikely to be sold. Findings that deposits had been gifted and that the transfer of £94,500 was a sham were findings on oral evidence which the wife had not shown to be unsupported. The reference to unpaid legal costs was only a cross-check, not an addition to either party’s capital needs.
3. Equal division of the capital was justified. The parties had comparable housing needs, and the wife could purchase suitable accommodation using the capital awarded and the lower mortgage figure accepted as available to her. The judge had used illustrative property prices and was not required to identify a precise minimum housing figure.
4. Periodical payments. There was no objectively right figure, provided the award fell within a reasonable band. The £700 monthly award was within that band. A 24-month term was also justified because the wife could reasonably increase her earnings sufficiently to replace the maintenance.
5. It remained open to the wife, at the end of the term, to apply under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 31 for variation or extension if supported by evidence. Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed in its entirety. The order was varied to record the husband’s obligation to pay half the nursery and childcare costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal granted; any necessary extension of time granted; appeal dismissed in its entirety, with the order varied to record the husband’s contribution to nursery and childcare costs.
• Principal Registry of the Family Division — HHJ Harris ordered the distribution of capital, periodical payments of £700 per month for 24 months, and a clean break thereafter.