"Since separation, W remained with the children in the FMH and H had been renting.
At first instance, the District Judge ordered:
W to remain in the FMH for 2 years to give her time to adjust, whereupon the property would be sold.
On sale, the proceeds would be divided 70% (£151,835) to W and 30% (£65,072) to H (out of which H would have to pay his debts).
H to pay W £500 p.c.m. periodical payments without a s.28(1)(a) bar on extension.
H appealed. Moor J agreed that the judgment at first instance could be accurately criticised in 3 ways: it did not sufficiently reason the very significant departure from equality; in so far as there is a "needs" justification for departure it did not explain how the resulting capital order would fairly meet the needs of both parties; and it did not adequately explain the interplay between the periodical payments order and the capital order."