Eutetra Bromfield v Vincent Bromfield

On an application to vary periodical maintenance, sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, read with section 15(1)(b) of the Maintenance Act, permit substitution of a lump sum, even where the original order predates the later statutory amendments. The assessment must address all circumstances and the factors in section 14(4), including the parties’ means, needs, capacity for self-support and obligations to others. Remarriage and responsibilities to a new family are relevant but do not give priority to either spouse or make a lifetime award impossible. The court must obtain adequate financial evidence, explain its assessment and capitalisation method, and consider housing and third-party interests. Findings of fact affirmed below will rarely be revisited on a third appeal.

The parties divorced in 1998. The wife brought a property claim under the Married Women’s Property Act and, in 2006, applied under the Matrimonial Causes Act to increase periodical maintenance ordered in 2000. Brooks J dismissed the property claim and ordered, following the husband’s proposal, transfer of his interest in the matrimonial home and payment of a $3m lump sum in full and final settlement. The Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed the wife’s appeal and held that remarriage and new family responsibilities ordinarily precluded indefinite maintenance. The Privy Council considered the property claim, the jurisdiction to substitute a lump sum, the statutory maintenance factors and the adequacy of the financial assessment.

Disposition. The appeal under the Married Women’s Property Act was dismissed. The appeal under the Matrimonial Causes Act was allowed, the orders for capital provision were set aside and the maintenance issues were remitted for rehearing by another judge of the Supreme Court.

1. The Board upheld the lower courts’ factual findings on the property claim. The wife’s seven grounds did not justify a third review of the evidence. The practice stated in Devi v Roy [1946] AC 508 and subsequently restated in Jamaica permits such review only in exceptional circumstances, such as a miscarriage of justice or violation of law or procedure. The Board also applied the principle in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415, that a company is a separate legal entity and its property is not owned by its shareholders.
2. Section 20(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act was not obviously apt to confer jurisdiction to order a lump sum. The jurisdiction instead arose under section 23(1), which authorised an order for maintenance, read with section 23(2) and section 15(1)(b) of the Maintenance Act. A lump sum was therefore a species of maintenance, and the fact that the original periodical-payment order predated the amendments was immaterial.
3. Section 14(4) of the Maintenance Act required consideration of all the circumstances and each relevant factor. The husband’s legal obligation to support another person was one factor only. It did not give priority to the second wife, nor did it make a lifetime award to the first wife legally impossible. The Board referred to Vaughan v Vaughan [2010] EWCA Civ 349, [2011] Fam 46, as reflecting that principle.
4. The assessment was flawed. The judge should have obtained financial information through available procedural powers rather than accepting the husband’s failure to provide it. He lacked evidence of the parties’ assets and means, gave no adequate explanation for selecting $100,000 per month as the wife’s needs, insufficiently explained the multiplier of five, and did not give the wife a proper opportunity to address it. He also failed adequately to consider the reasonableness and cost of alternative accommodation and the daughters’ legal interests in the home.
5. The Board ordered interim reinstatement of the 2000 periodical-payment order at $50,000 per month from the date of judgment, subject to allowance for those payments in the final rehearing.

• Privy Council: Appeal under the Married Women’s Property Act dismissed. Appeal under the Matrimonial Causes Act allowed and the maintenance issues remitted for rehearing.
• Court of Appeal of Jamaica: On 20 December 2012, dismissed the wife’s appeal from Brooks J’s orders.
• Supreme Court of Jamaica: On 6 January 2009, Brooks J dismissed the property claim and ordered transfer of the husband’s interest in the home and payment of a $3m lump sum in full and final settlement.