Extending Periodical Payments

Jones v Jones (CA TLR 11 April)

In G v G (Periodical Payments) ([1998] Fam 1) Ward LJ had observed “it is essential not only that an application [to extend an order for periodical payments] be made but that an order be made before the term expires”. This did not represent the correct position, and if it were it would lead to considerable uncertainty, practical inconvenience and pressure on the courts; conversely, the issue of an application was a step of clarity and simplicity which signalled to the court that the jurisdiction had been invoked. Accordingly where a consent order for periodical payments was to expire on 12 January 1998 and on 8 January the wife had applied to extend and vary up the order the court had jurisdiction to entertain her application.