LEGAL PRACTICE COURSE
Outline of Relevant Facts from Task 1 (Howard Case Study) as Applied to Section 25
MCA 1973
Section 25 (a) Income
Mr Howard
Mr H is 39 years old (so not too old) and is a trained Vet.
He has a professional job and owns his own practice – he is currently earning a very good
income.
As such, he should be able to maintain a future income or if necessary, sell his business and
gain employment with another practice. Essentially, he has earning capacity, which means
that he can save for future years, continue to contribute to his pension for old age, raise
loans to expand his business (if needed), raise a mortgage to buy a new home, maintain a
good lifestyle etc.
[The following information is only for reference to give a complete picture of how the
argument might follow in reality - as Mr. H claims the practice is not doing so well, we would
need proof eg business accounts, his pay slips etc. In addition, if the business is not doing so
well, there is an argument that perhaps it could be sold including the property and the
proceeds split between the parties].
When they were first married, the couple bought a flat in Chiswick (in joint names) but Mr. H
paid the deposit and the mortgage (he contributed more financially). This flat was sold for a
large profit and the couple then bought the matrimonial home in Southend and a holiday
home in Scotland.
There is an argument that Mr. H’s financial contribution to the Chiswick flat has had a
“springboard” effect i.e. the Chiswick flat, which increased in value, then allowed them to buy
a bigger property, open their own practice and also purchase a holiday home i.e. had it not
been for Mr. H’s ability to pay the mortgage/deposit on the Chiswick flat, the couple would
not have been able to move and open their practice/own a holiday home/lead such a lifestyle
etc. [Note, this argument could also be made under Section 25 (f) (contribution)].
The Matrimonial home in Southend is in Mr. H’s sole name (Teaser question - does
this make any difference to the outcome of the financial settlement?).
The Matrimonial home has been adapted (business and flat above). Mr H has paid for
improvements to the home. This in turn will increase the value of the property (if sold).
There is no mortgage on the matrimonial home - no ongoing liability.
We do not know how big the property is and its current value – this is important missing
information – why?
Now contrast the income etc. of Mr. Howard (as above) to that of Mrs. Howard
Mrs. H is 37 years old (so not too old) but she is currently not working.
She has worked in her husband’s practice (and elsewhere) as a nurse. They is an argument
that she could get a job (full or part time) and this would help her to maintain an income,
save/investment for old age, maintain herself etc. but see below – she has the onset of
Parkinson’s disease.
docs_097138850.docx 1/3 © City, University of London 2019
Outline of Relevant Facts from Task 1 (Howard Case Study) as Applied to Section 25
MCA 1973
Section 25 (a) Income
Mr Howard
Mr H is 39 years old (so not too old) and is a trained Vet.
He has a professional job and owns his own practice – he is currently earning a very good
income.
As such, he should be able to maintain a future income or if necessary, sell his business and
gain employment with another practice. Essentially, he has earning capacity, which means
that he can save for future years, continue to contribute to his pension for old age, raise
loans to expand his business (if needed), raise a mortgage to buy a new home, maintain a
good lifestyle etc.
[The following information is only for reference to give a complete picture of how the
argument might follow in reality - as Mr. H claims the practice is not doing so well, we would
need proof eg business accounts, his pay slips etc. In addition, if the business is not doing so
well, there is an argument that perhaps it could be sold including the property and the
proceeds split between the parties].
When they were first married, the couple bought a flat in Chiswick (in joint names) but Mr. H
paid the deposit and the mortgage (he contributed more financially). This flat was sold for a
large profit and the couple then bought the matrimonial home in Southend and a holiday
home in Scotland.
There is an argument that Mr. H’s financial contribution to the Chiswick flat has had a
“springboard” effect i.e. the Chiswick flat, which increased in value, then allowed them to buy
a bigger property, open their own practice and also purchase a holiday home i.e. had it not
been for Mr. H’s ability to pay the mortgage/deposit on the Chiswick flat, the couple would
not have been able to move and open their practice/own a holiday home/lead such a lifestyle
etc. [Note, this argument could also be made under Section 25 (f) (contribution)].
The Matrimonial home in Southend is in Mr. H’s sole name (Teaser question - does
this make any difference to the outcome of the financial settlement?).
The Matrimonial home has been adapted (business and flat above). Mr H has paid for
improvements to the home. This in turn will increase the value of the property (if sold).
There is no mortgage on the matrimonial home - no ongoing liability.
We do not know how big the property is and its current value – this is important missing
information – why?
Now contrast the income etc. of Mr. Howard (as above) to that of Mrs. Howard
Mrs. H is 37 years old (so not too old) but she is currently not working.
She has worked in her husband’s practice (and elsewhere) as a nurse. They is an argument
that she could get a job (full or part time) and this would help her to maintain an income,
save/investment for old age, maintain herself etc. but see below – she has the onset of
Parkinson’s disease.
docs_097138850.docx 1/3 © City, University of London 2019
