News

Hazel Wright comments on the Supreme Court judgment in Birch v Birch in UKSC blog Family Law Week

  • July 26, 2017
  • By Hunters Law

Supreme Court allows wife’s appeal in Birch v Birch

In Birch v Birch [2017] UKSC 53, the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:1 has granted the wife’s appeal and remitted for urgent hearing her application to be released from an undertaking in recitals to a consent order made on 28 July 2010.

Part of the order provided that the husband should transfer to the wife his legal and beneficial interest in the matrimonial home subject to the mortgage so that the wife could continue to live there with the two children of the family. In return the wife undertook at para 4.3 of the recitals to discharge all mortgage payments, to indemnify the husband against any liability under it and to use her best endeavours to release him from the covenants under it.

Then, crucially, she undertook at para 4.4 of the recitals that, if the husband had not been released from his mortgage covenants by 30 September 2012, she would secure his release by placing the home on the market for sale and proceeding to sell it.

Hazel Wright, family law partner at Hunters Solicitors, commented:

“House price inflation is still beating wage increases. That often means the person who moves out has to rent rather than buy a new home and rental prices are even beating house price increases in many areas, particularly London and the South East.

“It is more difficult to persuade mortgage lenders to release the main breadwinner, since the financial crash of 2007/08 the Council of Mortgage lenders has insisted on more proof of income to pay the mortgage, if the mortgage is to be transferred to one spouse.

“If the court now decides that the wife can stay there until 2019, that is better for her and her children, as they keep their home. However, is it fair to the husband and any new family he may have that he remains liable for this mortgage, even if he does not pay it? This makes his buying a new home with a new mortgage very difficult indeed, as the new mortgage lender will take into account the first mortgage for which he remains liable.

“Housing costs are a huge part of any budget. Two budgets for two homes rarely stretch far enough. The welfare of the children is the responsibility of both parents.”

Read the full article in UKSC blog and Family Law Week.

Related News

Feb 26, 2021
Richard Kershaw considers the implications of Mr Justice Cohen’s judgment in FRB v DRC (No 3) in Family Law Week
Feb 25, 2021
Richard Kershaw examines the impact of market volatility on divorce settlements in Finance Monthly
Feb 24, 2021
Polly Atkins examines whether one can charge an ex-spouse rent whilst waiting for their home to sell
Feb 19, 2021
Richard Kershaw examines whether you can re-open a divorce settlement due to Covid-19 in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary
Feb 02, 2021
Amy Scollan discusses divorce and luxury assets
Feb 01, 2021
Richard Kershaw discusses recent case where an unmarried couple have been ordered to share investment assets
Jan 18, 2021
Family Mediation Week 2021
Nov 19, 2020
Jay Patel and Polly Atkins examine family law in the lead up to Brexit in Family Law Week
Nov 09, 2020
Richard Kershaw discusses trusts on divorce and their role in financial planning strategies
Nov 05, 2020
Hunters recognised in The Times Best Law Firms 2021

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)

WARNING: Website falsely claiming to be Hunters Law

4 March 2021

The website 'hunterslawllp.com' is operating, falsely claiming to be Hunters Law. This website has been created to mirror the genuine site, although contact details including telephone number and email addresses have been changed, and the SRA verification badge does not work.

We have also been made aware of a series of faxes circulating, purporting to come from ‘barrister’ Dominik Opalinski, advising of an unclaimed inheritance of $16.95M, which feature the same website address. Dominik is a genuine partner of the firm, but is not a barrister.

We have reported this to the SRA, and contacted the website domain hosts to request its urgent removal. If you receive correspondence of a similar nature to that described, please contact us directly by reliable and established means.