Joy-Morancho v Joy (Dismissal of Variation Application)

An application to vary periodical payments must address genuine changes since the original order. It cannot operate as a disguised appeal or reopen findings which were not successfully challenged. The statutory requirement to consider all the circumstances does not require a complete re-evaluation in every case. The court may conduct a proportionate, light-touch review, concentrating on issues materially affected by the alleged change. Active case management may justify determining the application on submissions alone where further evidence and a full hearing would add expense without meaningful benefit.

The husband applied to reduce, potentially to a nominal sum, periodical payments of £120,000 per year ordered in favour of the wife in August 2015. The order followed findings that his presentation concerning his financial position was an elaborate charade involving his connection with a trust and related businesses.

The husband relied principally on a subsequent employment contract, increased personal borrowing, and alleged financial hardship. He also argued that a later decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal affected the reasoning underlying the 2015 order. The wife opposed variation. The central issues were whether there had been a material change of circumstances and whether the application required a full rehearing.

1. The application was dismissed. The husband could not use variation proceedings to appeal against or undermine the unchallenged findings in the August 2015 judgment. The original order was presumed correct when made, and variation ordinarily required a subsequent change of circumstances: Garner v Garner [1992] 1 FLR 573.
2. The statutory requirement under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 31(7), to have regard to all the circumstances did not require the court to conduct the section 25 exercise de novo. The court could undertake a review proportionate to the case, including a light-touch review confined to factors relevant to the variation application: Morris v Morris [2016] EWCA Civ 812.
3. Active case management required the court promptly to identify the issues, isolate those needing full investigation, and tailor procedure accordingly. A full evidential hearing was unjustified where the additional process would produce substantial cost but little illumination. The approach was supported by Crossley v Crossley [2007] EWCA Civ 1491 and Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14.
4. The husband’s employment contract did not establish that the factual basis of the earlier order had materially changed. The court remained unpersuaded by his evidence, particularly given the absence of transparent evidence about the contract’s origins and continuing concerns arising from the earlier findings. The Eastern Caribbean appellate decision concerning the trust deed did not affect the rationale of the 2015 order.
5. A budget was not a prerequisite to determining financial needs. In an appropriate case, a broad-brush assessment could provide a fair basis for determining the periodical payments obligation.

• High Court (Family Division): The application to vary the periodical payments order was dismissed. The court extended the time for any application for permission to appeal to 2 October 2017.
• Court of Appeal: Permission to appeal against the periodical payments and costs orders had previously been refused by King LJ and, after an oral hearing, by Black LJ. The judgment records those procedural decisions but they were not the determination under review in this judgment.