Correct calculations
59.Although the appeal is dismissed there have been identified some errors in the computation of the lump sum, and there needs to be adjustments made to it in any event in the light of the passage of time during which the husband has made some, but by no means all, of the periodical payments due. The court clearly has power to correct computational or other factual error whether pursuant to the slip rule or its inherent jurisdiction. 60.I have received written calculations from both parties. 61.The first issue separating the parties is the quantum of the headline figure used to compute the lump sum payable. There is a difference of £1,700 between the parties, i.e. one month's payment. In July 2018 the wife’s open offer was that the lump sum should be £77,800 based on a further 14 months of periodical payments at £1,700 and then a further 36 months (for a three-year degree) at £1,500 per month. It appears that the confusion has arisen because the periodical payments are payable in advance. In July 2018, there were in fact only 13 months to go until M was to start university when the periodical payments would decrease to £1,500 per month from September 2019 onwards. The husband's figure of £76,100 is therefore correct ((1,700 x 13) + (1,500 x 36) = 76,100). 62.The second issue is what proportion of the remainder of the CGT fund should be offset against the lump sum. The judgment of the trial judge makes clear that the remainder of the CGT fund should be divided equally between the parties. It is therefore only 50% of the remainder of the CGT fund, in other words the husband's portion, that should be appropriated and credited against the headline figure. As explained above, the husband is completely wrong to argue that 100% of the remainder of the CGT fund should be offset. 63.Under the order of the trial judge, by 1 September 2019 £44,000 should have been deposited into an account in M's name and £15,396 should have been deposited into an account in the wife's name for the sole purpose of sustaining M during her education. Obviously, this has not happened because the husband has not paid the lump sum and has only paid some of the periodic maintenance. I am assuming that the wife has supported M out of her own pocket while this case has ground on. The original calculation assumed that M would leave university at the end of August 2022, that is in 20 months from now. The original order of Moylan J provided that twothirds of the monthly maintenance would go direct to M once she was in University and indeed the £44,000 was calculated by the trial judge on that basis. Therefore, on the basis that the multiplicand when at University is £1,500, the sum to go direct to M each month should be £1,000, giving rise to the sum of £20,000 to be placed in M’s name, using a multiplier of 20. 64.The total lump sum now owing is £38,404. I arrive at this figure by deducting from £76,100 the agreed figure for periodic payments made by the husband of £30,600 plus half of the remainder of the CGT fund (£7,096). The wife shall make arrangements to deposit £20,000 into an account in the sole name of M. The balance shall be deposited into an account in the wife's name to be used for the sole purpose of sustaining M in her tertiary education. 65.The third issue is what interest is owing on the unpaid lump sum. From September 2019 to February 2020 (excluding January 2020) the husband made monthly payments of £1,700. Since February 2020 he has made no payments. Interest accrues at 8% per annum. Total interest to date is £5,091 and continuing. This calculation factors in the progressive reduction in the outstanding lump sum. 66.The interest calculation is as follows: 67.I order, following the rationale of the orders of Moylan J and the trial judge, that ⅔ of the accrued interest should be deposited into the account in M's name and ⅓ in the abovementioned account in the wife's name. 68.As at 13 January 2021 the total liability of the husband is £43,495 (76,100 - 30,600 - 7,096 + 5,091 = 43,495). In addition the husband owes the wife £17,500 being the payment on account of costs, with interest thereon, which I calculate to be £1,753, giving a total in respect of costs on account of £19,253. The total liability of the husband is therefore £62,748.