|
|
Here, the majority of the Court of Appeal wrongly suggested that a court can achieve indirectly what Parliament has said the court is not to do directly. While the needs and circumstances of the claimant spouse are relevant to a failure to achieve the objective of self‑sufficiency, it is the attribution of fault to the other spouse that is deemed by Parliament to be irrelevant to the issue of spousal support in a regime designed to deal with the consequences of marital breakdowns on a no‑fault basis. However, the Court of Appeal’s decision dismissing the husband’s application for a reduction in support payments should be affirmed on the basis of the other factors unrelated to misconduct. In addition, the narrowness of the wife’s work experience, which was mentioned by the chambers judge in her ruling, underlines how difficult it is for someone now approaching 60 years of age to re‑enter the labour force after a lengthy absence and with few marketable skills outside the limits of her former job at a bank. [2-3] [24]
|