Michael George and Aimee Fox offer advice on variation applications in financial remedy proceedings
7th March 2022
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4b0fc/4b0fc580e7aa0b1b9ec4143782620f8a40e481ad" alt="Michael George and Aimee Fox offer advice on variation applications in financial remedy proceedings 1 MGE and AIF Twitter"
Two barristers from 3PB's Financial Remedy Team, Michael George (pictured left) and Aimee Fox (pictured right) - have penned a review on variation applications for the latest issue of Family Law, contrasting the treatment of the applications for variations in income awards with those for non-income/capital provision.
The feature reviews two key cases of BT v CU and T v T, offers a postscript on PAG Report 2019 and suggests several lessons learnt from these important cases for divorce and financial settlement, notably:
- The test for varying the quantum or rights vested under a non-income/capital award is either very high or in the alternative they are not amenable to variation as to quantum and these two strands of thinking persist for the moment
- Practitioners should be mindful that an order for a series of lump sums may be deemed to be a camouflaged order for a series of lump sums and care needs to be made when advising and drafting
- The costs rules as drafted do seem logical in the context of applications for variation of non-income/capital awards
- Practitioners should be wary of inadvertently giving impermissible regulated financial advice if there is an option for an internal transfer.
This article was first published by LexisNexis® on 10 February 2022. Read the full article on variation applications in the February issue of Family Law.
If you wish to discuss the feature with either author, do email [email protected] or [email protected] or to instruct either barrister, contact their clerk Ian Charlton on [email protected] or 0121 289 4333 .