Successful appeal by a wife against the setting aside of an order extending the term of her spousal periodical payments.
Facts
- The application (which did not mention the extension sought) had to be read alongside the witness statement accompanying it.
- The said witness statement made plain the ambit of the application.
- In addition, a recital to a previous order made it clear the parties understood that W was applying for an extension of the maintenance term.
Held
- There had therefore been a valid application before the court when the parties had extended the term of W’s maintenance by consent in November 2012.
- The failure of the wife to follow the formalities set out in the FPR 2010 for seeking an extension of the term of a periodical payments order was not fatal to her case. H could not now seek to go behind that order.
