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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll