Bennett J, wo heard the initial case, qantified the claims of the wife at £150,000 per year but he awarded £ 250,000 per year to Mrs Parlour. Hwever, aother judge, Torpe LJ. ,opined that the earlier judge’s verdict of £250,000 per annum in the McFarlane and an award of £444,000 per annum in the Parlour case be made saying that “ the preferred mechanism by which the surplus is to be divided annually must be periodic payments (Para 66). I is seen in the recent case of in husband and wife divorced after the wife began to have an affair.
A per the Court Order, te husband transferred Rentals and incomes to the estranged wife, bt she chose to waste it on non-productive and injudicious investments after going to Australia. Nxt she claimed a change in the periodical payments and claimed a sum of £202,000 for capitalization and dismissal of periodical payments which was upheld by the district tribunal. Te husband appealed and the Court of Appeals held that “the wifes failure to utilise her earning potential, abandonment of the secure financial future provided for her by the husband and her lifestyle choices in Australia were matters which the husband could not be held responsible for in law.
I this case Woody is determined as a natural child, se would be protected under the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991. Uder Section 1 of the Child Support Act 1991, eery parent of a benefiting child, i held responsible for the child’s maintenance. I further delineates that, i case the parent is not physically available, shall construed that he has met his obligations with reference to any beneficial children, i he makes regular maintenance payments as per the bylaws prescribed by this Act.
Were there is a need for evaluation to be made for maintenance and periodic payments, i is the obligation of the absentee parent, i whose name such evaluation has been made, t release such payments. I Woody cannot be proved to be a natural child of the couple, Jz and Tracey, i would have to seek protection for her as child of family protected under the Domestic Proceedings & Magistrates Court Act, 1978.
A per the law where there is a child of the family under 18 years of age, te Court may not decline an application made by a party to the marriage under subsection. ..
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples