Yates v Yates [2012] EWCA Civ 532

Periodical payments: No second bite

Katherine Dunseath and Joanne Wescott examine the Supreme Court decision in Mills v Mills, and the approach to variation of periodical payments subsequent to a capital order ‘Where a capital order has previously been made for housing, an obligation to duplicate that provision is “improbable”.’ In Mills v Mills [2018] the Supreme Court allowed the …

Continue reading "Periodical payments: No second bite"

This post is only available to members.

Periodical Payments: Perfectly imperfect

Che Meakins reports on the courts’ discretion when considering the parties’ circumstances as a whole, and the importance of understanding the intention behind an order ‘In Mutch, the summary recital to the consent order was a crucial fact in understanding how and why the court had made its decision in November 2012.’In Mutch v Mutch …

Continue reading "Periodical Payments: Perfectly imperfect"

This post is only available to members.