{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast","title":"Resolution Podcast S3 Episode #9 | Maintenance and the Length of the Judge’s Foot | w/ Sally Harrison KC & Farhana Shazhady","html":"<iframe width=\"100%\" height=\"180\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" seamless src=\"https://share.transistor.fm/e/aba3c679\"></iframe>","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":3171,"description":"What is the correct approach to a maintenance case? Listen to Sally Harrison KC (St John’s Buildings) and Farhana Shahzady (Streathers Solicitors) tell us how it is done. \n \nSally reminds us of the guidance of Mr Justice Peel in WC v HC (Financial Remedies Agreements) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 22 (22 March 2022) \nhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2022/22.html\nwhen thinking about the quantum of a maintenance order.  Mr Justice Peel found that needs are an elastic concept, to be judged by reference to consideration of financial needs and obligations, whether there are children, and the age of the parties.  We discuss how the length of the marriage really impacts on how much the standard of living is taken into account.  Farhana reminds of guidance of Mr Justice Mostyn in SS v NS (Spousal Maintenance) (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 4183 (Fam).\nhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/4183.html\n \nSally and Farhana discuss the distinction between cases involving wealthy families where the Court may well be inclined to make a Duxbury award, as opposed to need based income awards in the majority of cases.  We discuss the overall impression that Courts are being quite restrictive on terms and quantum of maintenance at present.  \n \nWhen talking about capitalising maintenance awards, Sally wrestles with the discrepancy between the Ogden tables having a -0.25% rate of return in England & Wales, as opposed to Duxbury’s 3.75% rate of return after inflation of 3%.\nSally considers the following cases:\nHC v FW [2017] EWHC 3162 (Fam) (29 November 2017) \nhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/3162.html\nTattersall \nZ (No.5) (Enforcement) [2024] EWFC 44 (04 March 2024)\nhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2024/44.html\n \nFarhana tells us why it is important to consider the impact of menopause, when considering maintenance quantum, term and nominal maintenance.  She shares the details of her survey about the impact of maintenance in family law and financial remedy cases. \n ...","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/6KLL2IpaFH3iBShZ7ocYn8lY8fxSACTIJV16OjWXP6U/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9zaG93/LzE5Mjc0LzE2MTcy/NzQ4OTQtYXJ0d29y/ay5qcGc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}