header-logo header-logo

01 August 2013 / Margaret Hatwood , Rebecca Carter
Issue: 7571 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

The lump sum trap

istock_000006153344medium

When is a clean break not a clean break? Margaret Hatwood & Rebecca Carter report

Most people going through a divorce want to achieve future certainty in their financial arrangements. This can be achieved by what is known as a “clean break”. A full clean break means that neither party has any right to come back to court in the future for any orders for maintenance or capital.

While this is often the desired outcome, it is not always practically possible. Where an order is made for ongoing maintenance in favour of a husband or wife, the court can only impose a capital clean break, so that neither party can come back to apply for capital or lump sums in the future. Whereas the maintenance can be varied upwards or downwards if there is a change of circumstance. Achieving a capital clean break, however, poses its own problems and there are certain pitfalls to watch out for.

While an order for “lump sums” cannot be varied, an order for a lump sum payable by instalments can, in certain circumstances, be

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll