SC v DH - Transcript of Ex Tempore Judgment

¶ <doc> The Judgment in this matter (and any other person(s) anonymized) IN THE GRAND COURT OF FAMILY DIVISION BETWEEN AND CHAMBERS VIA Z is being distributed on a strict understanding that in any report no identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or byty of the child and the adult members of their family must be strictly p. URT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS Cause SC DH DOM on other than the attorneys cation and in particular the reserved. No.: FAM 86 of 2019 (LACV 24/2019) Petitioner Respondent Appearances: Before: Heard: Ex Tempore Judgment Delivered: Written Transcript of Judgment delivered to Anonymised and per Judgment released for Ms. Sheridan Brooks-Hurst Que of Bros the Petitioner. Mr. David McGrath of McGrath Torres Hon. Mme. Justice Margaret Ramsay- 28 and 30 April 2020 nt 30 April 2020 Ex Tempore parties: 16 June 2020 for petitioner: 5 October 2020 HEADNOTE Brooks and Brooks for per for the Respondent title Family Law -

¶ [1] This is the dec- ("the Order") so there be no undertakings of maintenance 2006/16 SC v DH – Transer- Maintenance pending suit – principles to be applied – inco- TRANSCRIPT OF EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT ssion on the husband’s application to vary a Consent Order, granting maintenance pending suit to the wife and the three maintenance payable by him to the wife and that he be re- set out in the Order. Also before the Court is the wife’s cro-

¶ [2] ption for an ex tempore judgment – Anonymized and released for publication 1 of 4 me-based order entered on 3 July 2019 children of the marriage, leased from the several s-application for arrears 20/07 </doc>
<doc> The Judgment in this matter (and any other person(s) anonymized)

¶ [2] The relevant C practice was as

¶ [3] The brief facts of his employment, resides in Canada where he obtains permits two he has no means from which to satisfy

¶ [6] The wife renounces the marriage. of the youngest far as those un-

¶ [7] Mr. McGrath made, or if ma- the order.

¶ [8] Mr. McGrath Coleridge J in establish that a a party by mail to the Order. is in the Cayman Islands. She lives in the family home of he asks the Court to continue the Order in respect of her or his child in addition to the various undertakings given in resp- dentakings continue to be relevant. ons that, as a matter of principle, an Order for interim decides on the dicta of Williams J of the Cayman Islands Greer v McGrath Moore and Moylan J BD v FD in support of his sus- taining income-based orders, until final orders are made dealing with the youngest child of maintenance and that effect of the outgoings, so maintenance cannot be not the means to satisfy rand Court in DF v JJ, brought. These cases the immediate needs of is with family assets and finance on divi-

¶ [9] The Orders in 175 illustrates an income but re- maintenance p to the husband circumstances court held that 2006/16 SC v DF – Transer- force. “income-based”. A more recent decision of Coleridge J in the point. In that case, an award was made against a husba- revived financial support from his father. The husband’s app- It’s resources, the parties’ needs and the husband’s own where the father made it clear he would not continue suc- the order should not have been made. 2 of 4 s v M [2012] All ER (2) 5 who had no personal cal against the award of ed to have proper regard ability to pay, in the financial support. The 0/16/2021 </doc>
<doc> The judgment in this matter (and any other person(s) anonymity is

¶ [10] Ms. Brooks su- financial recor- the wife and c

¶ [11] I recognise the d’s historical or current enhance pending suit for husband’s say so. man Bar and is a senior debtor with the Court. until then will not seek to lavit and make adverse (2) That main- hearing on sum order indeed her assets are

¶ [12] As it stands to not be able to an income whi-

¶ [13] With respect to example, the C McGrath for appears from a lance pending suit orders are retrospectively variable so if at the amount ordered was inadequate, any shortfall will be paid when the family capital assets are realised. This should not be held against the husband is misleading the Court, their rights in the funds should be adjusted accordingly. lay, the wife has the benefit of being the only spouse in emp- afford the standard of living she had become accustomed to oreas he does not. to the arrears, in the absence of an available pool of funds, but will not make an order for payment of the arrears. I ex- researching the provisions of the National Pensions (Am- that research that those funds are not presently available to it transpires at the final in part of the final lump sure the wife that, if realised when the capital payment. While she may in the marriage, she has life extension fund for respect my gratitude to Mr. residuary (gratitude to Mr. endment) Law 2020. It the husband and that no payment can be arrears, the qua-

¶ [14] I say again for and can be re-

¶ [15] Moving to con- rights to main- Causes Law pre- the children of is made before 2006/16 SC v DI – Transf. he made therefrom for the benefit of the wife. I therefore ac- annum or which is in any event disputed, to the final ancillary the wife’s benefit, that those arrears, if any, can be dealt- overed from the sale of the matrimonial home and other real sider the wife’s application for a nominal order to be made in- enance after they’ve attained the age of 16 years, the position provides that, at the time of pronouncing the decree, the court – the marriage. “Child” is defined as a child under the age of the child is the age of 16 years, then the order may be exten- pled to empore Judgment – Anonymized and released for publication. 3 of 4 ourn the application for lies hearing. with at the final hearing inizable assets. to preserve the children’s is that the Matrimonial shall make provision for 16 years. If a final order nded, but not otherwise. 20/07/16 </doc>
<doc> The Judgment in this matter (and any other person(s)

¶ [16] Mr. McGrath is to make a main power is in the ORDER:

¶ [1] The CJ

¶ [2] Direct

¶ [3] Forma care at parties, is being distributed on a strict understanding that in any report no personified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or by any of the child and the adult members of their family must be strictly re- submits, and I accept, that for “M” (born 6 May 2003) there is antenance order for him under section 20 or under section 21. Court making final orders on a decree of dissolution of mar- tion other than the attorneys ation and in particular the reserved. as no power in this Court In respect of “F”, that triage under section 21. is I be revoked; application for custody, not be reached by the THE HON. JUSTICE JUDGE OF THE GRA RAMSAY-HALE AND COURT 2006/16 SC v DH – Transer 4 of 4 2010 </doc>