Guernsey Law Reports 2005-06 GLR Note 17
C v. C
ROYAL COURT (Finch, Lieut. Bailiff): March 8th, 2006
Family Law—financial provision—payment of debts
Following divorce, it was found that substantial debts had been incurred during the marriage, of which the wife was responsible for £110,408.71. The husband had already paid approximately £125,000, including about £25,000 in respect of negative equity on the former matrimonial home, and proposed to pay off a further £28,000 which they had accumulated on credit cards. The wife applied under arts. 46 and 47 of the Matrimonial Causes (Guernsey) Law 1939 for a more equitable distribution of the debts, i.e. that the husband make either a lump sum payment or periodical payments to her or directly to her creditors, to ensure that her debts were paid off.
The Royal Court dismissed the application, holding that the allocation or division of an “interest in property” under art. 46, and “contributions for support” under art. 47 did not extend to an order for payments to assist the wife in repaying her debts. It considered the application to be one which should have been the subject of civil proceedings in the Royal Court.
On appeal (2005–06 GLR 199), the Court of Appeal found that the Royal Court had interpreted “contributions for support” too narrowly, and that it in fact had the power under art. 47 to order the husband to make reasonable payments to assist the wife in meeting the debts she had incurred during the marriage. It therefore ordered that the matter be remitted to the Royal Court to decide whether, considering all the circumstances (including those under s.25 of the English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, such as the parties’ incomes and earning capacities, their financial needs and obligations, and their conduct), to order the husband to make such payments.
Held: The wife’s application would be dismissed. The court had to exercise its discretion to do justice between the parties; the only reason that might justify the making of the order sought by the wife was the significant imbalance between the parties’ incomes (he was a chartered accountant and a director of a multi-national financial consultancy; she was an auxiliary nurse), but, given that she had run up the debts herself and had deliberately concealed the extent of them from the husband, it would be inequitable to disregard her financial conduct and, in the circumstances, unfair to make such an order (Martin v. Martin, [1976] Fam. 335, considered). None of the s.25 considerations appeared sufficiently cogent to justify the husband paying a further amount over the significant repayments he had already made or was committed to making.
[December 12th, 2006: The Court of Appeal (Rowland, Sumption and Smith, JJ.A.) dismissed the wife’s second appeal on the ground that the Royal Court had exercised its discretion correctly.]
2009
Law Report
None
Guernsey Law Reports 2005-06 GLR Note 17