Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Amounts payable under judicial separation agreement are varied in light of altered financial circumstances
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, on a consent application to vary the amount payable under an existing order of the High Court (in the context of settled family law judicial separation proceedings in 2008) providing for lump sum payments by instalments payable by the respondent to the deceased (as his former spouse), grants the order sought, on the grounds that it would be unjust and inequitable, given the significantly altered financial circumstances of the respondent since 2008, to seek to enforce the order against him, in circumstances where the court is mindful of the duty to ensure 'proper provision' for the surviving children of the marriage.
Application to enforce payment of lump sum order due and owing - executors to estate - settlement agreement subsequently made an order of court - subsequent motion brought by respondent seeking to discharge part of order providing that neither party shall apply to vary the amount of sums payable - decree of judicial separation - surviving children as principal beneficiaries of trust created by deceased's will - grant of probate extracted in 2010 - respondent's financial circumstances have diminished since 2008 - contrary to beneficiaries if applicants were to rigorously pursue forced realisation of respondent's assets to recover sums due - accommodation now reached between parties - proper provision - statutory provision providing for variation and discharge of orders - new and unforeseen circumstances which were unknown at time of making of order - consent application - principles to be applied - lump sum payable by instalments may be altered - unjust and inequitable not to so vary.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
