MT v MT (Financial Provision: Lump Sum)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1991 |
| Date | 1991 |
| Court | Family Division |
BRACEWELL, J
Financial provision – lump sum – husband having no current assets but expectations of large capital sum on death of his father – father likely to die within next few years – long marriage – wife having no capital – whether wife's application for lump sum should be adjourned until death of husband's father.
The parties were married in 1970 and were divorced in 1990. There were two children of the family. The parties had lived beyond their means for many years. Their expensive lifestyle had been supported by money and gifts from the husband's maternal grandmother and by the prospective demise of the husband's father who was now 83 and a man of considerable wealth. The parties were both German nationals and the husband could not be excluded from benefiting from the father's death as, under German law, he would automatically be entitled to claim one eighth of the estate. The husband had no assets from which a lump sum could currently be ordered and the wife asked that her application for a lump sum be adjourned until the death of her father-in-law. The husband opposed an adjournment.
Held – The court was required to have regard to the financial resources each party was likely to have in the foreseeable future: s 25(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The courts had considered the interpretation of "the foreseeable future" in a number of cases. There were observations in some cases which suggested that "the foreseeable future" was a relatively short period of from four to five years: see Roberts v Roberts [1986] 1 WLR 437 and Ranson v Ranson [1988] 1 WLR 183, but the observations were obiter. Specified proportions of sums due to a party in periods up to ten years later had been ordered to be paid: see Priest v Priest (1980) 1 FLR 189 and Milne v Milne (1981) 2 FLR 286. In other cases the court adjourned the applications for a lump sum to prevent injustice: see Hardy v Hardy (1981) 2 FLR 321 and Davies v Davies [1986] 1 FLR 497; and in Gibson v Archibald [1989] 1 WLR 123 the House of Lords had referred to the wide and unfettered discretion of the court to arrive at an equitable result. In this case justice demanded an adjournment of the wife's claim for a lump sum. The husband had the certainty of at least an eighth of his father's assets and his father was likely to die within the next few years. The parties had always anticipated and lived for this prospective capital and after a long marriage, with no other capital, the wife would be harshly
[1991] FCR 649 at 650
done by if she did not eventually have a share commensurate with her needs and the amount of capital available. The husband's attitude towards providing for the wife gave cause for concern, reliance on periodical payments placed her in a precarious position as the husband would seek actively to minimize his responsibilities. The only possibility of a clean break, which was desirable in this case, was by an adjournment. If an adjournment was refused the wife would be permanently without capital to buy even a modest property whilst the husband would remain with the prospect of substantial wealth. Therefore, the wife's application for a lump sum would be adjourned until the death of the husband's father.
Peter Singer, QC and Nicholas Mostyn for the wife.
Paul Coleridge for the husband.
MRS JUSTICE BRACEWELL.In this case I am asked to adjudicate whether the petitioner's application for a lump sum should be adjourned until the death of her father-in-law, or whether it should be heard and determined now, in which event it is common ground that the application would inevitably be dismissed since there are presently no capital assets from which to award any lump sum. The parties have, in fact, reached agreement as to periodical payments.
The background is unusual. The husband and wife are both nationals of Germany and both are descended from aristocratic families. The parties married in Munich in February 1970. The wife was then 18, had not completed her education and had never held down a job. The husband was approximately 26 years old, had studied law and was the only son of a father of considerable means. There was a pre-marriage contract at the behest of the husband, prompted no doubt by his father who disapproved then of the marriage. That contract was subsequently varied. The wife was given some shares in a company upon marriage. Subsequently, that company went into liquidation, the shares became worthless and the husband substituted £66,000 for the wife which was placed in a Swiss Bank and which emanated from sale of objects given by the grandmother of the husband.
Two children were born: a girl in 1970 who was educated at Benenden and is currently at university, and a boy, who was born in 1976 and is currently at a public school. The parties moved to the United Kingdom in 1980 since which time London has been their permanent home. They came to London partly to distance themselves from strained family relationships, particularly between the husband and his father, and also because there were some tax advantages in working for a German company in London.
The marriage broke down in 1989 when the husband formed a relationship with another woman, and a decree of divorce nisi has been pronounced in this jurisdiction on 6 April...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichola Anne Joy v Clive Douglas Christopher Joy-morancho (First Respondent) Nautilus Fiduciary (Asia) Ltd (the trustee of The New Huertotrust) (Third Respondent) LCAL Anthology Inc. (Fourth Respondent)
...prevail over the normal desirability of finality in litigation. I refer as examples to Hardy v Hardy [1981] 2 FLR 321 and MT v MT (Financial Provision: Lump Sum) [1992] 1 FLR 362. In my judgment it is certainly foreseeable that an accommodation will be made to give H access to part of the m......
-
Clive Douglas Christopher Joy-Morancho v Nichola Anne Joy
...prevail over the normal desirability of finality in litigation. I refer as examples to Hardy v Hardy [1981] 2 FLR 321 and MT v MT (Financial Provision: Lump Sum) [1992] 1 FLR 362. In my judgment it is certainly foreseeable that an accommodation will be made to give H access to part of the m......
-
C v C (Ancillary Relief: Trust Fund)
...to have in the foreseeable future.” 47 I was referred to a number of cases, in particular to the decision of Bracewell J in MT v MT (Financial Provision: Lump Sum) [1992] 1 FLR 362, which contains a careful analysis of (seemingly) all the preceding authorities, and the decision of Connell J......
-
Quan v Bray
...1 FCR 346, [2018] 1 FLR 727. KEWS v NCHC [2013] 2 HKLRD 314, (2013) 16 HKCFAR 1. MT v MT (financial provision: lump sum) [1991] FCR 649, [1992] 1 FLR 362, Fam Pearce v Pearce[2003] EWCA Civ 1054, [2004] 1 WLR 68, [2003] 3 FCR 178, [2003] 2 FLR 1144. Penn v Lord Baltimore (1750) 28 ER 498, (......