AB v FC

In a needs-based financial remedy case following a short marriage, periodical payments are assessed primarily by reference to needs, not by sharing future post-separation income. The marital standard of living is a benchmark, not an automatic ceiling or floor. Its significance is reduced where the marriage was brief and support is required over many years.

Where appropriate, maintenance may include an element enabling a spouse to build security by paying down a repayment mortgage. Such stockpiling must remain proportionate to the parties’ resources, the recipient’s reasonable housing needs and the payer’s uncertain future income. Fairness requires both parties to prepare for a foreseeable reduction in earning capacity.

The wife sought financial remedy orders after a marriage lasting approximately 19 months. The parties had a young child, no marital acquest and little realisable capital. The husband was a professional footballer earning approximately £1 million net per year, although his earning capacity was expected to be time-limited. The wife had no current income and was the child’s principal carer.

The central issues were whether the wife’s future housing needs should be met through rented accommodation or an owner-occupied home, whether maintenance could include a mortgage-repayment or stockpiling element, and what level and duration of periodical payments would be fair.

1. Needs and fairness. Applying Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25, the first consideration was the child’s welfare. The wife required a stable home and resources to care for the child, but she was also expected to take steps towards eventual financial independence. Fairness remained the overarching objective.
2. Assessment of needs. Periodical payments were assessed primarily by reference to need. The court did not treat the wife as entitled to share the husband’s future earnings or bonuses. The high marital standard of living was relevant as a benchmark, but its weight was limited by the short marriage and the long period over which support might be required.
3. Housing and stockpiling. It was permissible in principle to include an element of maintenance which the wife could save and use towards a repayment mortgage. That element had to be proportionate and safeguarded so that it generated genuine future security. The wife’s proposed property and mortgage were excessive. A housing fund of £700,000, with an annual mortgage allowance of £80,000, was sufficient.
4. Resources and uncertainty. The court proceeded on an assumed net income of £900,000 per year, allowing for currency fluctuations and the likely reduction in the husband’s football income. Future changes, including injury or a material reduction in income, could be addressed on variation.
5. Orders. The husband was ordered to pay the wife £164,000 per year, including up to £80,000 for mortgage repayments, and child maintenance of £36,000 per year, producing global maintenance of £200,000 per year excluding school fees. He was also ordered to pay £32,500 towards costs and the wife was to receive the greater of £270,000 or 36% of the net proceeds of sale of the Miami apartment. The wife’s periodical payments were on a joint-lives basis, subject to review after seven years or earlier upon a material reduction in income.

First-instance financial remedy application. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.