Back for more
In the first part of a two-part analysis of variation applications, Conrad Adam examines some unusual recent case law.
This article reviews recently reported cases concerning applications to vary periodical payments, and identifies general themes and principles that practitioners may apply to a broad cross section of cases. It is hoped it can be shown that, while the cases are very different in their facts, some broad principles can be derived that practitioners can assume with some confidence will be applied to the majority of cases. A particular focus will be the issue of compensation (or relationship-generated disadvantage), and an examination of the weight to be given to that concept within the context of a variation application.
The first two cases, Lauder v Lauder [2007] and North v North [2007], are both, for very different reasons, very unusual in terms of their facts. However, before reviewing the cases, it may be worthwhile to briefly remind ourselves of some basic points.
Recent cases
The recent cases reviewed here, and in part two of this article, all warrant detailed reading. Not only do they contain useful reviews of pre-existing case law, but they also review and comment on the fundamental principles established in White v White [2001] and Miller v Miller and McFarlane v McFarlane [2006]. Only the briefest summary of the facts can be contained in this piece.
...
