Reconsidering periodical payments

Pearce v Pearce (CA TLR 1 September)

When reconsidering a former spouse’s entitlement to future periodical payments, the court’s function is not to reopen capital claims but to substitute for the periodical payments order such other order as would both fairly compensate the payee but at the same time complete the clean break. The judge has to decide three questions in the following sequence: first, what variation to make in the order for periodical payments. The second task is to fix the date from which the increased order was to commence. This will dispose of the past and present account between the parties. Then, and only then, should he move to the future, substituting a capital payment calculated in accordance with the Duxbury Tables for the income stream that he is terminating. The judge should have restricted himself to capitalisation of the increased periodical payments order, and abstained from the addition of a substantial uplift.