Guides to Good
Practice 2012
Guide to Good Practice
on Dealing with Financial
Dispute Resolution
Appointments
Guides to Good Practice
1
Guide to Good Practice on Dealing with
Financial Dispute Resolution Appointments
1.
Introduction
The procedure for financial dispute resolution appointments (FDRs) is set out in Part 9.17 of the Family
Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) and Practice Direction 9A (PD 9A). They are meetings ‘held for the
purposes of discussion and negotiation’, ‘to reduce the tension which inevitably arises in family
disputes and facilitating settlement of those disputes’ (para 6.1 PD 9A). Paragraph 6.2 goes on to say
that ‘in order for the FDR to be effective, parties must approach the occasion openly and without
reserve’. The parties ‘must use their best endeavours to reach agreement on the matters in issue
between them’ (r9.17 FPR 2010). From the client’s point of view many issues arise at FDR. These can be
summarised as follows:
(a)
clients feeling bullied and pressurised into reaching an agreement that day;
(b)
solicitors not attending the FDR;
(c)
clients meeting counsel for the first time on the day of the FDR, and having insufficient
conferences with counsel before the hearing (whether in chambers or at court);
(d)
consent orders made/forced through under duress;
(e)
solicitors/counsel being rushed and rude;
(f)
solicitors/counsel having other hearings to deal with on the same occasion and so not giving
either client full attention;
(g)
advice being given by counsel at the FDR that differs from that given by counsel previously
instructed in the matter; and
(h)
advice being given by counsel at the FDR that differs from that given by the solicitors – therefore
heard for the first time at the FDR.
Settlements are often finalised in haste and under stressful conditions. It is very easy for something to
be missed – for example, a tax consequence, security, insurance policy, pension implications etc.
Therefore it is important that you ensure that you comply with the following and that if you instruct
counsel, that they do the same:
•
check and advise as to relevant matters;
•
explain the circumstances of an FDR to a client and the risks involved (as against the advantages
of settlement);
•
check the factual basis with the client – eg all joint assets are covered etc;
•
check the client understands the terms of settlement and also the basis for it; and
2
Guides to Good Practice
•
ensure that the client is not put under undue pressure to sign up to an agreement they will later
regret.
One matter that could be considered is whether there should be a cooling-off period after agreement
has been reached. The most basic consumer credit agreement provides for this, yet we expect clients
to settle at the end of a long day and in stressful circumstances. Naturally, there are dangers in this
(eg a less rigorous approach to settlements) but it may be from the client’s point of view that this
time to reflect should be available and, from your/counsel’s standpoint, it would also give some
protection against claims of over-zealous settlement. If you do think this is appropriate and a
consent order is not lodged, then a period of seven or 14 days could be allowed and the matter listed
for a mention to determine whether the FDR should be re-listed or the application set down for
hearing.
2.
Prior to FDR
2.1
All rules of court and directions given at the first appointment should be complied with.
2.2
If instructing counsel to represent your client at the FDR, consider with your client arranging a
conference with counsel beforehand so that your client will not be meeting counsel for the first
time on the day of the FDR; so that counsel can seek any further information required and
advise; and so that preparations for the FDR can be agreed. See also the Guide to Good Practice
on Dealing with the Bar.
2.3
You should ensure there is a proper schedule of assets and income and where appropriate a ‘net
effect’ illustration of offers made. If you are instructing counsel to represent your client at the
FDR you should agree with them who is going to prepare these documents.
2.4
Rule 9.17(3) of the FPR 2010 provides that not less than seven days prior to the FDR, the
applicant must file with the court details of all offers and proposals, and responses to them.
This, in practice, means copies of all without prejudice and open offers should be lodged with
the court seven days prior to the FDR. Without prejudice offers/correspondence should then be
taken back from the court file at the end of the FDR. They will of course also be included in the
FDR bundle if prepared.
2.5
Ideally there should be a concise written summary presentation for the court of the clients’
respective positions. These should be clearly marked ‘FOR USE AT THE FDR ONLY’. This is called
a position statement or case outline. Different courts have varied expectations of what is
expected, but it is good practice to produce such a document. Again, if instructing counsel,
agree with them who is to produce this. A guidance note for drafting a position statement/case
outline and a precedent position statement/case outline can be found at the end of this
guidance note.
2.6
If counsel is producing the position statement then it should be e-mailed to the instructing
solicitor as soon as practically possible and certainly prior to the day of the FDR. The solicitor
should forward a copy to the client and obtain their approval (and/or comments). The solicitor
should let counsel have their comments on the position statement and the final wording should
then be signed off with counsel in sufficient time to allow any necessary amendments. This will
Guides to Good Practice
3
eliminate the all too frequent situation where the client sees the position statement for the first
time at court at the FDR and is unhappy with some or all of its contents.
2.7
Rule 2.61E of the FPR 2010 states that, at the conclusion of the FDR, any filed documents must,
‘at the request of the party who filed them’, be returned and not retained on the court file. The
onus is therefore on you/your counsel to ensure that no without prejudice documents remain
on the court file.
2.8
If you are instructing counsel and there has been no pre-FDR conference you should make clear
in your instructions what advice (if any) the client has been given by you. If counsel’s view differs
from yours then, wherever possible, you should ask counsel to advise you in advance so that you
can pass on counsel’s advice to the client.
2.9
In a case of any complexity it will usually be appropriate for you or a properly briefed assistant to
be present, particularly if there has been no prior conference.
3.
At the FDR
3.1
Both parties must personally attend the FDR (r9.17(10) FPR 2010).
3.2
Attend punctually (unless otherwise instructed, one hour in advance of the listed hearing time).
3.3
Even where the listing requires attendance one hour before the hearing to enable negotiations, it
is often advisable – particularly when there has been no earlier conference – to start the
conference with the client at court earlier than this so that inter-party negotiations can
commence at the designated time.
3.4
Because of the nature of FDRs and the time that needs to be spent with the client, it is advisable
that careful thought be given before agreeing to conduct more than one FDR in one day. It is
good practice for counsel, if offered a brief from a second firm of solicitors, to expressly seek
consent from the first solicitor (and their client) prior to acceptance of the second brief, and
that this consent is recorded by the clerks. The second solicitor (and their client) must also, of
course, be made aware that counsel has already accepted one brief, and its nature. If you seek to
brief counsel for more than one FDR, you should ensure that both clients have been made aware
in advance and have consented.
3.5
Explain the nature of the FDR to the client as soon as is appropriate in each case and ensure that
they have a good understanding of its nature, process and aims well in advance of the hearing
date, ie that the purpose of the hearing is to explore actively whether reasonable settlement
may be achieved by agreement. The explanation should include the privileged and ‘without
prejudice’ nature of the hearing (and associated negotiations) and that the judge conducting the
hearing is not permitted to have any further involvement in the case. You should also explain
that the judge ought to give an indication, the weight that must be given to this indication, and
its non-binding nature.Explain to the client the benefits of settling so that the costs, stress and
delay of a contested hearing may be avoided. Costs implications of both a settlement and
progressing towards trial should be explained. This last point is vital since saving costs is a major
benefit to clients of settling at FDR stage, and is one which the client readily understands.
4
Guides to Good Practice
3.6
Explain that the client is not bound to settle at the hearing. If they wish to give further
consideration to offers of settlement made, subsequently withdraw any offers made but not
accepted at the hearing, and/or go to trial then that is their entitlement. It would be perfectly
proper to point out the timescale of such a decision and that there would be no finality for
several months. Interim arrangements would have to be continued – for example, a party who is
not living in the former matrimonial home may have to continue to rent. An application for
maintenance pending suit/interim periodical payments may also have to be considered if this
has not already been addressed. Ensure that the client understands that the court will expect
both parties to negotiate constructively – ie that the offer(s) made in advance of the hearing
(and/or the offers formulated at court) are usually expected to be a parties’ opening position
rather than their last word. Explain that the court should do more than simply choose between
both parties’ positions and, in most cases, will expect negotiations to continue after an initial
indication has been given.
3.7
Verify the schedule of assets and liabilities and the position statement with your client, ideally
in advance of the hearing date so that if checks are necessary they can be carried out. The
client should have the opportunity to check the asset list accords with their understanding.
This may only be a provisional schedule if some matters still need clarification, but it should
still be done.
3.8
Verify income and earning capacity with the client (again in advance of the hearing date if
possible), noting comments on the other party’s assets and income.
3.9
Check that the client understands the current proposals and their net effect.
3.10 Inform the client of any additional or further proposals that could be made, and why they may
or may not be advisable.
3.11
In respect of all offers to be made at court:
•
record in summary all offers intended to be made;
•
ensure that the client is aware of total offer terms;
•
check that the client agrees and understands such terms;
•
record the client’s agreement to proposals.
3.12 In respect of proposals made by the other party:
•
record any offer made by the other party;
•
ensure that the client understands the nature of the offer;
•
advise as to whether the other party’s offer should be accepted or not, and why.
3.13 If there are any issues upon which you, counsel or the client are uncertain, or which require
further advice (eg tax or the effect of pension sharing), then the client should be expressly
advised as to this and as to the options available. Options include:
•
Adjourn to a second FDR to obtain the information.
Guides to Good Practice
5
•
Agree all matters that may be agreed and adjourn the remainder (although this is
sometimes difficult to achieve as the other party often refuses).
•
Only if the client is clear that they wish to proceed notwithstanding the lack of relevant
information or advice should agreement as to these matters be finalised, but this should be
recorded and signed by the client.
3.14 Judges may put pressure on parties to settle – for example ‘you’re not leaving this building until
you’ve reached agreement’. Advise the client that they are entitled to pursue their claims or
further consider an offer of settlement made by the other party after the FDR notwithstanding
such pressure, and inform the judge of the advice given to the client.
3.15 Likewise, if a client wishes to continue to negotiate they are entitled to do so. However, if
negotiations have already continued for several hours (and there is therefore a concern that the
client may now only be seeking to reach agreement in order to bring the day to an end) and/or
the offer(s) which the client now seeks to put forward (or accept) would go beyond the advice
being given by you or counsel, it is considered preferable to advise the client that there is a risk
of deciding in haste and repenting at leisure, and that negotiations can continue in intersolicitor correspondence beginning, if necessary, the following day. If the client wishes to
continue notwithstanding this advice, a full note of the advice given should be recorded. Even if
an FDR is unsuccessful on the day, a round-table meeting shortly afterwards can prove effective,
as both parties will have heard what the judge said at the FDR and this may have redefined their
expectations. Such a meeting should be treated in the same careful way as an FDR, particularly
in relation to the status of any offers made and ancillary negotiations.
3.16 If no agreement is reached at court, ensure the client is aware that offers made during the FDR
appointment cannot be relied on subsequently (for example in relation to making or resisting an
application for costs) unless the offer(s) are re-stated in open correspondence after the
appointment. If an offer is expressly left open for acceptance, it can subsequently be withdrawn
at any time prior to its acceptance by the other party.
4. In respect of any proposed agreement
4.1
All the terms of the proposed agreement should be reduced to writing either in terms of a
consent order or heads of agreement. As many negligence claims arise over consent orders
drafted in haste at court, the terms should be read over to the client, who should confirm that
they:
•
understand the terms of the agreement and the financial effect of the agreement upon
them;
•
have received advice in relation to the proposed terms;
•
do not wish for a further period to consider the matter; and agree to be bound by the
proposed terms.Heads of agreement should be the norm in all bar the most straightforward
cases. The obvious exception is if a well thought out consent order has been drafted prior
to the FDR and only minor amendments are necessary to tailor this to the agreement
6
Guides to Good Practice
reached at the FDR.All minutes of order and heads of agreement should be signed by the
client, by counsel if instructed, or by you if counsel is not instructed.
4.2
Specifically ask whether the client would wish to have time to consider and reflect on the
matter before finalising any agreement and, if so, what period may be appropriate. In the
event of the client wanting this opportunity, then the matter may be listed for mention, such
mention to be vacated upon the lodging of a consent order and the court advised accordingly.
4.3
If a fully drafted consent order is not approved by the court at the conclusion of the FDR, you/
counsel must know and the client must understand the status of any signed agreement before
leaving court. It should be expressly stated and recorded whether matters are Xydhias-compliant
(ie heads of agreement susceptible to a ‘show cause’ application); Rose-compliant (ie an
unperfected order); or open or subject to FDR privilege or otherwise.
4.4
If heads of agreement are signed (as opposed to an unperfected or perfected order being made),
ensure the client understands that the agreement does not have the same concluded status of
an order (whether perfected or not) but that if one party or the other seeks to resile from the
agreement, a ‘show cause’ application may be made for the agreement to be made an order of
the court.
4.5
In any case where agreement is reached but a fully drafted consent order is not approved at the
conclusion of the FDR, both you/counsel and client should be aware that, on a subsequent
‘show cause’ application, the question may arise as to whether a particular issue that was not
addressed at the FDR hearing (whether because it could not be resolved that day, was
unforeseen, or otherwise) was substantive (ie agreement on the issue was fundamental to the
parties’ overall agreement) or was merely ‘some point of drafting, detail or implementation ...
that was open for determination by the court at its abbreviated hearing’ (per Thorpe LJ in
Xydhias v Xydhias [1999] 1 FLR 683 at 693D/E and 692H). In other words, in such a situation it
should be agreed between the parties’ legal representatives (so far as possible) whether any
outstanding issues are fundamental ‘deal breakers’ or will be for determination for a court if
agreement cannot subsequently be reached. Particular care needs to be taken to avoid a
complaint by a client who, having signed heads of agreement, ‘loses’ on a particular issue at a
subsequent abbreviated hearing and thereafter complains that, if they had known that they
could lose on that particular issue but still be held to their substantive agreement, they would
not have reached agreement in the first place.
Notes
1.
This good practice guidance does not and cannot affect any obligations in law, specific court
orders or rules of professional conduct.
2.
Good practice guidance can inevitably only deal with generality of situations. It cannot be an
absolute rule. The facts of any particular case may justify and/or require a lawyer to depart from
these guidelines.
3.
This guidance applies to all financial order/Schedule 1 CA 1989/TLATA 1996 cases in which FDRs
may be used, for the better conduct and approach of family breakdown issues, and not just to
cases between Resolution members.
Guides to Good Practice
7
This guidance is a slightly adapted version of an article written for the guidance of counsel by
Caroline Willbourne, Nicholas Allen, Nicholas Cusworth, Philip Marshall and Alex Verdan of the
FLBA, and our grateful thanks are due to them.
See over for guidance notes on position statements/case outlines, and a precedent version.
8
Guides to Good Practice
Appendix A: Guidance Note for Drafting
Position Statement/Case Outline
As referred to in paragraph 2.5 of the Guide to Good Practice:
•
The aim of the position statement is to provide the judge with a succinct overview of the facts
of the case, issues between the parties, and the current position of your client on these issues
and the question of settlement, leading into the FDR.
•
It should be clearly marked ‘FOR USE AT THE FDR ONLY’ and you must remember to ask for it
back at the end of the FDR so that no without prejudice documents remain on the court file.
•
It should be easy to read by the judge, and the use of separate sections can make the document
far easier to navigate.
•
It should be succinct and to the point. Unless more than one hour of court time has been set
aside for the hearing (which it would not have in the vast majority of cases), the judge will be
either unable to thoroughly review a lengthy document, or in doing so will limit their ability to
play their true role within the FDR appointment – that of an effective mediator.
•
It is useful for the judge to have a separate schedule of assets and chronology to accompany the
position statement. This is to allow ease of cross-referencing by the judge, which will allow them to
grasp the key facts and figures more quickly, again freeing their time for the resolution of the case.
•
The following sections should be included in a position statement for FDR:
i.
Background
This would include the key facts of the marriage and the current position of the parties (and
their children).
ii.
Assets
Summarise the assets/liabilities/income involved (referring to a separate and easily
navigated schedule of assets/income). If liabilities are an issue, then a separate section can
be included in this regard (if it requires narrative explanation, ie it is not a debt which is
accepted as a ‘matrimonial liability’).
iii.
Income
What are the parties’ current incomes (from all sources)? Are there questions regarding
earning capacity, if so what is your client’s position on that? Any maintenance paid by one
party to another (including child maintenance) can be set out here. See also the points on
schedule of assets below.
iv.
Other factual points
Separate sections relating to businesses, trusts, foreign elements, liabilities, inheritances etc
Guides to Good Practice
9
should be set out. However, it must be remembered that the FDR judge has no power to
decide issues of fact between parties. Lengthy exploration of such issues should therefore
be avoided. It will simply use up valuable court time for little purpose.
v.
Issues
This is where each of the key issues can be identified, and your client’s case on the same set
out. Sub-sections are useful (on the basis of ease of navigation).
Capital division
Given that the court’s first task is ‘computation’ as per the Court of Appeal in Charman, a
logical approach would be to define what your client considers the ‘pot’ to be, and identify
any assets which it is suggested fall outside the pot.
Thereafter the question is what your client says is the fair approach to adopt regarding
dividing those assets (both matrimonial and non-matrimonial) between the parties, and
how your client would propose that such division is effected.
Income/maintenance
Is this a spousal maintenance case? If so, at what level should maintenance be paid, and for
how long? Is capitalisation an option and if so what calculation does your client suggest
should be applied?
Other issues such as school fees, agreed child maintenance, and life insurance can be
addressed in this section.
Pensions
Your client’s position in relation to pension provision should be set out.
Other
Your client’s case as to other specific factual issues can be separately explored, but as set
out above substantial detail is unlikely to assist the court in most cases.
vi.
Offers and net effect schedules
A section setting out the current offers, or history of offers will be helpful. A net effect
schedule will always be useful, as this would give the judge a clear understanding of what a
set of proposals would mean in practice to both parties.
•
The schedule of assets should be easy to read, and the total assets easy to identify. A judge will
in almost every case want to cross check the proposed awards against the overall asset base so
as to ensure that fairness is being achieved between the parties.
Pensions are a separate class of assets. They should be recorded in the schedule but under a
separate section. To include them in the overall total can give a very distorted financial picture.
Details of income and expenditure are useful additions to the schedule of assets, but should
10
Guides to Good Practice
again be listed separately. Maintenance being paid and received should be recorded as debits and
credits to the parties respectively.
•
The chronology should again be easy to read, ideally with ages and key periods (ie length of
marriage) being set out in brackets to make things easier.
It should not be bogged down in detail. If the judge’s time is taken trawling through lengthy
chronologies, the speed at which they can grasp the key issues and get on with their role as
mediator is impeded.
Where the factual matrix of a case warrants a detailed chronology, thought should be given to
either highlighting key dates in bold, or using a ‘key date’ chronology as the first page and a full
chronology following it.
It must be remembered that the role of an FDR judge is not to determine issues of fact between
parties.
Guides to Good Practice
11
Appendix B: Precedent Position Statement/
Case Outline
As referred to in paragraph 2.5 of the Guide to Good Practice
WITHOUT PREJUDUCE – FOR USE AT THE FDR ONLY
Case No.:
IN THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
Or
IN THE [
] COUNTY COURT
BETWEEN:
ANITA JANE SMITH
Petitioner
-andJOHN HAROLD SMITH
Respondent
HUSBAND’S POSITION STATEMENT/CASE OUTLINE
FOR FDR ON 23 JULY 2012
1.
This case summary is intended to be read in conjunction with (1) the chronology and asset
schedule and (2) the bundle of relevant correspondence, attached hereto.1
2.
Mrs Smith shall be referred to as ‘W’ and Mr Smith as ‘H’ throughout this document.
Background
3.
The parties separated just over 2 years ago (27.11.2006) after a 23-year marriage. There are two
children, David (17) and Lucy (18). David lives with W at the former matrimonial home (‘the FMH’)
in Lower Witham, he is at King Edward’s school (West Laughton) and it is anticipated he will go on
to university. Lucy has until recently resided at a friend’s house and is on a gap year. She will attend
Cambridge University next year to study medicine. H lives in a rented flat in West Laughton.
1
12
Precedents of a chronology and asset schedule and bundle of correspondence are not included in this Guide.
Guides to Good Practice
4.
H (49) runs The Vine Garage in Burnham. He also has a 50% share in a pub/hotel, The Newick
Arms Hotel, and he owns a shop, 16 Terminus Road, which is rented to Paddy Power at a rent of
£28,000 p.a.
5.
W (48) works as a secretary for a local firm of surveyors.
Assets
6.
There is agreement as to the value of all the main assets, essentially as per the Order made at the First
Appointment (16.10.08). Since the Order, W has had a valuation completed on the hotel, but ‘does
not seek to rely on it’, so we presume it is a lower value than that put forward by H. The only finetuning to the assets is that W says £450,000 for the shop, whereas the husband says £440,000.
Notwithstanding the agreed business valuation, H accepts that a separate figure should be included
for stock. As at 31 March 2008, the trade value of the stock was £128,000 (the anticipated sale value
of the stock was £186,000) since then the stock has reduced further to £100,000.
7.
Accordingly, the main assets are:
(i)
Equity in the matrimonial home £1,428,000;
(ii) Pension £373,000 (£322,000 of this is H’s);
(iii) Business assets of £1,280,000, without taking into account the business overdraft, running
at £300,000.
There is also a flat in Spain owned by H with a small equity of £49,400.
Liabilities
8.
H has very significant liabilities, totalling (excluding the mortgage on the matrimonial home and
Spanish property) in excess of £2.4 million. The Vine Garage was purchased in March 2007 for
£1,470,000 (£1,200,000 for the building and £270,000 for the goodwill), effectively on 100%
borrowing.
9.
The business has not been able to sustain the high level of borrowing repayments, hence
(notwithstanding H’s significantly reduced drawings) the rise of the overdraft from around
£100,000 to its current £300,000. Ideally H would agree with the bank to reschedule the
repayments but he is nervous to approach the bank given the reduction in turnover and profit
and the bank’s concern at his high level of indebtedness.
Proposals
10.
H accepts that W should share equally in the fruits of the marriage partnership. On the basis of
our schedule, a strict 50:50 split would give W total assets of £1,379,220. If we separate pension
and non-pension assets, this would give her £1,192,698 of capital assets and a pension pot of
£186,500 (ie involving a pension transfer to W of £135,500). H’s proposals of 31 October provide
W with capital of £1,413,044, ie a lump sum of £1,040,000 plus a pension transfer of H’s entire
pension fund giving W a pension fund of £373,044.
11.
W is in the process of purchasing a property for £990,000, plus setting up costs of £50,000 (her
parents are ‘loaning’ her the money to complete the purchase before the matrimonial home is
Guides to Good Practice
13
sold). H’s view is that a figure of around £800,000 is a more appropriate housing fund, but
nevertheless he has agreed that W receive a lump sum of £1,040,000 out of the net proceeds of
sale of the FMH. This will leave him with approximately £400,000.
12.
In order to bring W up to the 50% mark, she would need a further £288,220 (ie the balance of
£339,220, less her own pension fund of £51,000). Put crudely, if W requires £1,040,000 from the
net proceeds of sale, then the only way H can fund the balance of the lump sum is by way of
pension share. This will be a very attractive option for W, as she would be left with a pension
fund of £373,000, which she can either draw at age 50 (including taking 25% of the fund by way
of lump sum) or it could be left untouched to draw down at a later stage.
13.
W has expressed a desire to take the Paddy Power shop but the only way it can be achieved is if
she takes less of the liquid capital, hence our alternative offer, dated 1 December 2008
(£950,000 plus the shop worth £440,000). The difficulty is that the bank, who are becoming
increasingly concerned about H’s overall level of indebtedness, have made it clear that, in
addition to the two loans secured on the shop (ie £300,000 in total), once they lose the
‘comfort’ of H’s interest in the FMH (ie once the home is sold), they will also require the
company overdraft to be repaid. Consequently, if the house is sold and the shop is transferred, H
will need £600,000 to reduce his borrowing to an acceptable level to the bank. However (even
ignoring his own housing needs) he will only receive a maximum of £400,000 cash from the net
proceeds of sale.
14.
Our proposals of 31 October 2008 provide W with 50% of the overall assets (including H’s
business assets). W would receive just short of 75% of the liquid capital, plus the entire
accumulated pension. H would only be left with his business assets (the £400,000 equity he
receives from the house would be swallowed up by the bank) and a very significant level of
indebtedness. H would face immense difficulties raising sufficient funds to re-house himself.
Maintenance
15.
In relation to maintenance, the court is referred to BDO Stoy Hayward’s letter of 12 October,
which says ‘prior to the purchase of The Vine Garage Mr Smith’s drawings (including pension
contributions) were in the region of £300,000 per annum. However the financing of the
acquisition and the difficult trading conditions referred to above have adversely affected both
cash flow and profits, such that our client’s drawings in the year ended 31 March 2008 were
reduced to £42,500 (ie £3,500 per month). They continue currently at this figure which in our
view, given the current levels of borrowing and profitability, is the maximum that the business is
able to sustain.’
16.
H has never received an income from the hotel, as it is has not yet made a profit, and his only
other source of income is the rent from the flat at £14,000 per calendar month gross [£11,000
net] (though he hopes that this will increase to around £17,000pa after the rent review in
October of this year). Accordingly, H’s total net income is £53,500.
17.
It is submitted that, on the basis H will remain responsible for the children’s school fees (£9,000)
and, in due course, university fees (probably for both children), his proposal of £25,000 global
maintenance is more than generous. Indeed, even to pay maintenance at this level, H is relying
on the (far from certain) fact that the financial position of the garage will improve.
14
Guides to Good Practice
18.
If W accepts the alternative offer and the Paddy Power shop is transferred to her, she will have a
net income of £20,000pa (ie £14,000 gross [£11,000 net] from the shop, plus her own net
earnings of £9,286pa). If £17,000 rental income is achieved at the October rent review, this
would give W a net income of just in excess of £22,000pa. Conversely, H (deprived of the
income from the shop) would have income of £42,500pa, plus a significant liability for school
and university fees, plus children’s maintenance.
Guides to Good Practice
15