Duxbury No Assistance

A v A (Elderly Applicant: Lump Sum) [1999] Fam Div 2 FLR 969.

At the time of the divorce the husband was aged 79 and the wife 76. The wife had assets totaling nearly £2 million whilst the husband had only £61,000. The wife’s gross income was about £169,000 and the husband’s £6,411. On the husband’s application for financial relief the district judge awarded him £389,000 which with his existing assets of £61,000 would provide a total of £450,000, being £200,000 with which to house himself and £250,000 to produce an income of £16,000 a year whilst retaining the fund intact. In substituting an award of £350,000 the judge allocated £200,000 for the husband’s rehousing and £150,000 for an income fund, indicating that the husband’s own cash of £61,000 should not be taken into account. It was contrary to establish principles to calculate the size of an income-producing fund solely by reference to the amount of income. Because of the husband’s advanced age and the length of the marriage a Duxbury calculation did not help the court to compute the size of the fund which the husband would need to provide him with an appropriate income. Full contributions made during a lengthy marriage could appropriately lead to an award higher than would be meted out were ‘reasonable requirements’ to be the predominant yardstick, and having regard to the imbalance between the parties’ financial positions it was not fair to include the husband’s capital of £61,000 in the income-producing fund. There was a real chance of the husband living longer than the life expectancy tables because of his age and therefore the Duxbury calculation was of no assistance. The life expectancy tables used in Duxbury simply predicted the average period for which the whole group of those of a given age would survive but could not foretell any particular individual’s human life span.