comparemela.com

The Court of Appeal held that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of the statutory scheme, and wording of Sch 1, if the court did not have the power to make a settlement of property order for the benefit of a person who would be over 18 when it took effect; however, protecting the children from the financial pressure or ‘manipulation’ the appellant might exert had not come within the scope of an ‘exceptional’ circumstance which would have justified making an outright capital award in favour of an adult child.

Related Keywords

London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Katherine Kelsey ,Laura Moys ,Supreme Court ,Family Division ,Civil Division ,Children Act ,Family Law ,Citation Number ,Hall Brown Solicitors ,Freemans Solicitors ,Financial Remedies Children Act 1989 ,Ch 1 Capital Provision Adult Children Exceptional Circumstances Requirement ,

© 2025 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.