AB v CD (Jurisdiction : Global Maintenance Orders) 2017 EWHC 3164

6 December 2017

Appeal concerning the court’s jurisdiction regarding Segal orders.


  • H appealed a final order for financial remedies (‘the 2016 order’).
  • The 2016 order included a global order for maintenance under which H was to pay £39,000 pa for the benefit of W and the parties’ children (‘the global order’). There was to be a corresponding reduction in that level of provision in the event of a future CMS calculation.
  • The first instance judge accepted that there was no jurisdiction to order periodical payments directly for the children’s benefit. The judge nevertheless concluded that it was appropriate to make a global order for spousal maintenance and to give credit for any sums paid pursuant to a CMS assessment if one was made subsequently.
  • H appealed, contending that the judge had no jurisdiction to make an order in respect of the children of the family.


  • The appeal was dismissed.
  • The judge had jurisdiction to make a global/Segal
  • The Court of Appeal in Dorney-Kingdom v Dorney-Kingdom [2000] 2 FLR 855 held that such orders were legitimate since their terms do not usurp the jurisdiction of the CMS; they act as a holding position until such time as the CMS actually provide an assessment. However, such orders are legitimate only if they contain a substantial ingredient of spousal support – a criterion met in the instant case.