CC v LC

       The husband's failures include a failure to file any evidence of his housing and other capital needs, his mortgage raising ability, his earning capacity or his intentions. Further, he has made no proposals to resolve these proceedings that I have seen.� The relevant parts of his Form E, where he should have dealt with those issues, were left blank [see pages 148-152].

       Despite the husband's approach to this case, he has been paying maintenance to the wife and children of �1,062 p.m. and, as I explain, I will order him to continue to do so. Further, the children spend three nights a week with him. Those are important factors within this case, and I have borne them at the forefront of my mind along with other key features of this case when deciding upon the outcome of these proceedings.

   Therefore, this judgment explains how I have come to the decision that the wife should pay a lump sum to the husband of �70,000. �60,000 of that will come from the wife through her parents (and I have been told that they have the ability to help her to that extent). �4,500 of that will come from the wife's savings. �5,500 of that will be reflected in the costs orders that the husband will have to meet and which the wife will satisfy by a reduction in the lump sum, making the total that the husband will receive of �64,500.

   I have thought very carefully about whether there should be an additional charge (or trust arrangement) over the former matrimonial home, affording the husband a further share in the property at a later stage (in legal terms, a Mesher or Martin arrangement). Having given considerable thought to that over the past few days, I have decided that there should not be.

   �Rule 27.5 of The Family Procedure Rules 2010 - I now wish to address the Husband directly, through this judgment.