Log on
Browse content

Supreme Court ruling in Birch v Birch variation appeal due next week

Legal Materials Copyright Statement & Disclaimer

Judgment to be handed down on 26 July

  • The Supreme Court will hand down judgment in the Birch v Birch appeal next week on Wednesday 26th July.

    The appeal was heard in May this year before a panel comprising Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes.

    The issue at stake and the key facts (in the Supreme Court's words) are set out below:

    Issue
    When varying a consent order, should the court apply s.31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, or is it constrained by Court of Appeal authority to apply a narrower approach, even if that is inconsistent with the children's interests?

    Facts
    The financial remedy proceedings in a husband and wife's divorce were concluded by a consent order in July 2010, which noted the husband's agreement that he had no interest in the former matrimonial home. The wife provided an undertaking at paragraph 4.4 to secure the release of the husband from the mortgage on the former matrimonial home by 30 September 2012, or for the property to be sold in default.

    In November 2011, the wife applied to vary the undertaking in paragraph 4.4 so that the husband would be released from the mortgage or the property sold in default when their youngest child attained the age of 18, or either of their two children completed full time education. She applied under s.31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, on the footing that the undertaking was equivalent to an order for sale under s.24A. This would require the court to take into account the children's best interests. The District Judge dismissed the application, and the wife's appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the wife's further appeal, holding the jurisdiction to vary the order was derived from the inherent jurisdiction of the court, rather than s.31 of the Act, and that it was not appropriate to exercise it in this case.The wife appeals to the Supreme Court.

    The Court of Appeal judgment can be read here.


Published: 20/07/2017

Bookmark this item




Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.