AZ v AG (Part III Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984)

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 requires a fact-sensitive assessment of jurisdiction and financial provision. The court must consider whether England and Wales is an appropriate venue and, if so, whether an order should be made having regard to all the circumstances and the statutory factors. A claim is not confined to the minimum sum needed to cure injustice, nor is it automatically assessed by the more generous approach applicable on an English divorce. The court may nevertheless make provision for reasonable needs, including needs arising from the claimant’s continuing role as primary carer and the practical consequences of the parties’ connections with England.

The applicant wife sought financial provision from her former husband under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Leave had been granted on 7 April 2022, with jurisdiction accepted by the respondent at the final hearing. The parties had lived mainly in Country A during a long and exceptionally affluent marriage, but both parties and all four children had substantial connections with England. The wife was the children’s principal carer and sought capital for housing in Country A and London, relocation, furnishings, replacement personal possessions and a lifetime income fund. The central issues were whether provision should be made, the proper scope of a Part III needs assessment, and the amount required in the circumstances.

The court made a clean-break order for the wife of £27.415 million, together with provision to be agreed regarding the cars or a sum in lieu. The parties were directed to liaise about the structure and timing of payment so that accommodation could be secured without delay.

1. Statutory approach. Following Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13, sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 impose inter-related inquiries. The court must assess both the appropriateness of England and Wales as the venue and whether an order should be made having regard to all the circumstances. The statutory lists are not exhaustive.
2. Scope of provision. There is no requirement of exceptionality, hardship or injustice as a condition of jurisdiction or relief. Nor is the award limited to the minimum necessary to overcome injustice. The court has a broad discretion, subject to the claimant receiving no more than would have been available had all proceedings taken place in England and Wales and, where possible, reasonable needs being met.
3. Needs-light assessment. The court accepted the useful distillation in MA v SK [2016] 1 FLR 310, while recognising that the assessment remains fact-specific. A Part III claim is governed by a different statutory framework from a claim under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The award may be similar to an English divorce award where the connections are very strong, but need not be.
4. Application. The wife’s connections with England were substantial. The court treated her continuing role as the children’s primary carer, the need for autonomy and stability, the parties’ resources, future earning capacity, exceptionally high marital standard of living, future resources and the children’s interests as relevant. Provision was made for property in Country A, interim rent, a London property, furnishings, replacement clothes and jewellery, relocation and a Duxbury fund.

First-instance determination of the wife’s Part III financial provision application. The judgment records that leave had been granted on 7 April 2022; no appeal or earlier merits judgment is stated.