CROFT v MOY [Royal Ct]

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
Judge(Ereaut, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Pepin and Bailhache):
Judgment Date11 June 1971
Date11 June 1971
ROYAL COURT
(Ereaut, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Pepin and Bailhache):

J.P. Labesse for the petitioner;

J.C.K.H. Valpy for the respondent.

Family Lawfinancial provisionmaintenance of standardsif cohabitation terminated by husband's conduct, wife's standard of living not to suffer more than necessarily inherent in maintaining two householdsnot to be automatically relegated to lower standard of living than husbandin refusing secured provision, court entitled to have regard inter alia to fact that husband has properly maintained wife and children voluntarily pending suit

Family Lawfinancial provisionsecured provisionno fixed principle as to proportions of overall provision to be secured and unsecuredunder Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law 1949, art. 29(1) court to decide in all circumstances of case whether secured provision needed, gross or annual sum, term, and whether in addition to or as substitute for other provision

Family Lawfinancial provisionsecured provisionvaluation of assetsin calculating annual income, permissible in some circumstances to give annual value to capital assets even though produce no income

EREAUT, DEPUTY BAILIFF: On 12th October, 1970, the petitioner filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of his adultery. The respondent did not defend the petition, and on 1st December, 1970, the Matrimonial Causes Division of the Royal Court granted the petitioner a decree nisi.

The petitioner further prayed (inter alia) that

1. she be granted the custody of the three children of the marriage; and

2. she be granted such secured provision and lump sum together with such sums by way of maintenance for herself and the said children as might be just.

The consideration of these ancillary matters was deferred. The petitioner having subsequently failed to apply for the decree to be made absolute, because the ancillary matters had not been settled, the respondent, in pursuance of Article 20(3) of the Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law, 1949 (hereinafter called "the Law"), summonsed the petitioner to show cause why the decree should not be made absolute. It was agreed by the parties that the decree could not be made absolute until the ancillary matters had been disposed of.

By consent, the custody of the three children of the marriage has now been awarded to the petitioner. It was further agreed that the Court has no power to order the respondent to pay to the petitioner a lump sum.

That which remains to be determined, therefore, and with which this judgment deals, is the financial support, by way of secured provision and/or maintenance payments, which the respondent should be ordered to give to the petitioner and to the children.

So far as the petitioner is concerned, this issue is governed by Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Law (as amended), the provisions of which are

ARTICLE 29(1)

"On pronouncing a decree nisi of divorce or nullity of marriage or at any time thereafter, whether before or after the decree has been made absolute, the court may, if it thinks fit, order that the husband shall, to the satisfaction of the court, secure to the wife such gross sum of money or annual sum of money for any term, not exceeding her life, as, having regard to the conduct of the parties and the fortune and earning capacity of each of them, the court may deem to be reasonable."

ARTICLE 30(1)

"On pronouncing a decree nisi of divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights or nullity of marriage or at any time thereafter, whether before or after the decree has been made absolute, the court may, if it thinks fit, by order direct the husband to pay to the wife, during their joint lives, such monthly or weekly sum for the maintenance and support of the wife as the court may think reasonable, and any such order may either be in addition to or be instead of an order made under Article 29 of this Law."

Some guidance for the solution of the problem of assessing secured provision and maintenance for a wife is to be found in the judgment of Sir Boyd Merriman, P., in Chichester v. Chichester [1936] P. 129, at pages 133-134, and although he was there referring to section 190(1) and (2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, those provisions are sufficiently similar to the two provisions of the Law which we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • H (the Mother) v J (the Father)
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 3 October 2013
    .... J -v- M [2002] JLR 330 . In the matter of S [2011] JRC 119 . F -v- M [2007] JLR Note 21 . S -v- G [2003] JLR Note 29 . Croft -v- Moy (1971) JJ 1793 . Howarth -v- McBride (1984) JJ 1 . Stanaway-Ivey -v- Overland (1980) JJ 233 . Southern (nee Brownbill) -v- Southern and Kingswell [1999] JLR......
  • P
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 17 February 2011
    ...not represented. Authorities Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law 1949. Children (Jersey) Law 2002. L -v- D & R [2004] JLR 334 . Croft -v- Moy 1971 JJ 1793. S -v- G [2003] JRC 091 A. Child Support Agency 2000 guidelines. J -v- M [2008] JRC 031 A. L -v- D [2004] JRC 164 W -v- O [2004] JLR N53 . W......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT