Other meanings of DVD
Law
In English family law, D v D is a case citation used for several reported decisions, most notably D v D (Lump Sum: Adjournment of Application) [2001] 1 FLR 633, a landmark ruling on the court's discretion to adjourn financial remedy applications in divorce proceedings. The case established that a lump sum order can be deferred until a future event, such as the sale of a property, to achieve fairness between the parties. It is frequently cited in ancillary relief disputes, particularly where immediate payment would cause hardship or where assets are not readily liquid. The decision illustrates the broad discretionary powers granted to family judges under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and it remains a key reference in modern financial remedy case law.
The case arose from a divorce where the husband sought a lump sum order against the wife, who owned a property but lacked immediate liquidity. The wife applied to adjourn the application until the property was sold, arguing that an immediate order would force a disadvantageous sale. The court had to consider the interplay between the statutory factors in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which require a fair division of assets, and the practical realities of asset realisation. The decision was made in the context of a growing body of case law emphasising flexibility in financial remedies, following the House of Lords' guidance in White v White (2000) on non-discrimination and fairness. The judge at first instance adjourned the application, and the husband appealed, leading to the Court of Appeal's ruling.
The Court of Appeal upheld the adjournment, holding that a judge has a wide discretion to defer a lump sum application to a future date if it is just and equitable. Lord Justice Thorpe, delivering the leading judgment, emphasised that the court should not make an order that would cause undue hardship or force a sale at an inopportune time. The ruling clarified that an adjournment is not a refusal of the claim but a postponement to enable a fair outcome, particularly when the only asset is a home or a business. The decision also addressed the use of 'Mesher orders' and 'Martin orders'—mechanisms that defer capital realisation—and confirmed that such flexibility is consistent with the statutory objective of achieving a clean break where possible, but not at the expense of fairness. The case has been cited in numerous subsequent decisions, including L v L (2006) and B v B (2008), as authority for the proposition that adjournments are a legitimate tool in financial remedy proceedings.
The principle from D v D has been applied in a range of scenarios, including cases involving pension sharing, business assets, and inherited wealth. It is particularly relevant where a party's assets are tied up in illiquid investments or where a sale would trigger tax liabilities. The case also influenced the development of 'deferred lump sum' orders, which are now a recognised form of relief in the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Practitioners frequently cite D v D when advising clients on the timing of financial applications, as it provides a clear precedent for seeking an adjournment to await a specific event, such as the maturity of an investment or the sale of a property. The decision has been praised for its pragmatic approach, but it has also been criticised for potentially delaying finality in divorce settlements, which can prolong emotional and financial uncertainty.
A lesser-known facet is that the citation D v D is used for multiple unrelated cases, including D v D (Custody: Jurisdiction) (1985) and D v D (Financial Provision) (1979), which can cause confusion in legal research. The 2001 decision is sometimes referred to as D v D (Lump Sum: Adjournment of Application) to distinguish it from these earlier cases. Another notable detail is that the case was decided shortly after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, and the court considered whether an adjournment could breach Article 6 (right to a fair trial) or Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property). The court held that no breach occurred because the adjournment was a procedural measure aimed at achieving a fair outcome. Additionally, the case has been cited in Australian and Canadian family law proceedings as persuasive authority, demonstrating its international influence. The judgment also contains a detailed discussion of the 'clean break' principle, which has been the subject of subsequent academic debate.
This article focuses on the 2001 Court of Appeal decision in D v D (Lump Sum: Adjournment of Application), which is the most commonly cited case with this citation in family law.
Help improve the encyclopedia. Reports go straight to the site manager.