JL v SL (No.3)

A request for amplification of a judgment should be made promptly and before final hand-down. A court may nevertheless address a late request where necessary to dispel serious misconceptions. In financial remedy proceedings, the Duxbury algorithm is ordinarily the starting point, and, absent countervailing evidence, may also be the finishing point. Its assumptions are approximations rather than immutable rules, but a different methodology or rate of return requires a reasoned evidential basis. A clean break is encouraged where appropriate. A spouse has no general entitlement to share the other spouse’s income where her own resources are sufficient to meet her needs; such an outcome would arise only in an exceptional case.

The judgment was supplemental to the principal financial remedy judgment in JL v SL (No. 2) [2015] EWHC 360 (Fam). After judgment had been handed down, the applicant sought amplification of the calculations and reasons through 13 questions. The request concerned the use of the Duxbury algorithm, pension flexibility, assumed investment returns, the effect of a clean break and the comparison with the earlier award of District Judge Reid. The central issues were whether the calculations required further explanation and whether the applicant had identified any error or unfairness requiring post-judgment relief.

1. The application was rejected. The request was made a week after hand-down and was wholly unacceptable in timing. Requests for clarification should normally be made before the judgment is finalised. The judge nevertheless addressed the points to dispel serious misconceptions.
2. The Duxbury calculation of £1,191,357 did not assume that income from the preserved fund would remain invested. It assumed that the fund would maintain its real value under the stated Duxbury assumptions, while its income yield was available for earlier needs.
3. The court was entitled to take account of the increased flexibility afforded to pension holders by the Taxation of Pensions Act 2014. It was unrealistic to rely on an annuity figure calculated before the pension reforms had been announced.
4. The Duxbury methodology rests on necessary simplifying assumptions, including income yield, capital growth, inflation, taxation, drawdown, life expectancy and state pension arrangements. Those assumptions will not materialise exactly. Nevertheless, historical investment and inflation data supported the use of the customary assumptions in the absence of countervailing evidence.
5. Although there is no immutable or universally applicable rate of return, the Duxbury tables are widely used. Their methodology and assumptions represent the usual starting point, and, where there is no contrary evidence, the usual finishing point. A departure from the algorithm or its assumptions requires justification by the facts and evidence.
6. The applicant’s comparison with the earlier periodical payments award treated that award as a guaranteed annuity. It was variable and could end or be varied on several contingencies. The comparison therefore did not compare like with like. The revised award left the applicant in a more secure and independent position and achieved a clean break, consistent with the intention of Parliament under section 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
7. A spouse must use her own resources to meet her needs and can claim periodical payments only to the extent that those resources are insufficient. A claim to the other spouse’s income irrespective of her own resources would arise only in an exceptional case, which this was not.

The judgment records that the principal financial remedy judgment followed a successful appeal from the earlier award of District Judge Reid. The present decision was a supplemental judgment addressing a post-hand-down request for amplification.