Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The applicant represented herself at the hearing The husband was represented by Andrew Campbell, instructed through the Direct Access scheme Hearing dates: 16 and 17 January and 19 February 2024 ____________________
The income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each parent has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
'It is well established that the court cannot legitimately circumvent this prohibition by making a capital award which rolls up expenditure which would ordinarily be met by a periodical payments order. �. Put another way, the court does not have jurisdiction to make an award to meet the quotidian expenses of living; to meet, if you like, the cost of one's daily bread. It can only make an award for genuinely capital expenditure of a singular nature.'
Her explanations around the purchase of the property in [ city X ] shifted and were not convincing;
The timeline of the purchase was consistent with her actions in informing the father of her intention to move to [ city X ], and applying to the court to endorse her plan;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.