The online information & webinar resource for private family lawyers.
New to watch
What is the impact of Covid-19 to investors & how are family lawyers and their clients affected?
How has the Covid crisis affected pensions on divorce?
Coronavirus & its impact on Family Law (Part 2: Children)
Coronavirus & its impact on Family Law so far (Part 1: Finance)
New to read
-
AD v BD [2020] EWHC 857 (Fam)
The wife's application for financial remedy orders following the breakdown of the marriage to the husband. Both came from wealthy families. They had married in 2010, after signing a pre-nuptial document regarding the "Separation de Biens". A religious ceremony took place in April and a legal ceremony in July. The parties had lived in London since 2015. Cohen J did not accord weight to the pre-nuptial agreement: it had not been the subject of discussion between the parties, it had been presented to the wife on the day before the wedding, she had had no chance to consider its contents, she was unfamiliar with the concept of choosing a marital regime, and she had no understanding of the implications of the agreement. Cohen J went on to deem 40% of the matrimonial home to be a matrimonial asset. When this was aggregated with the $8m found to have been received by the husband during the marriage for his work within the family business, it amounted to a matrimonial acquest of £7.9m, and a half share would thus provide the wife with just under £4m. The home would be transferred to the wife. Orders for periodical payments and child periodical payments were also made. Finally, Cohen J noted the parties had spent a "deeply regrettable" and "disastrously high" amount of money on costs, and that there had been repeated breaches of the Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Financial Remedy Hearings in the High Court. He suggested that the sanctions available to the court at paragraph 18 of the Statement should not be overlooked. Judgment, 06/06/2020, free -
H (Costs) [2020] EWHC B17 (Fam)
The father sought an order for the mother to pay one half of the costs of the expert witnesses instructed in the case. The child's care had been transferred from the mother to the father, and the mother had declined to engage in the therapy required by the court and thus contact had not yet been resumed. The mother opposed this application on the grounds that she could not afford to pay a one-half share, and that she did not appoint the parental alienation expert, nor the other professionals involved, nor agree to their instruction. Keehan J said that the latter argument was "totally misconceived": the court had considered their instruction to be necessary and had given permission for their instruction. Keehan J was not persuaded that the mother did not have the means to pay the costs sought by the father. She was ordered to pay £2,783.60 forthwith and the remaining balance in 16 instalments of £500 per month. Judgment, 05/06/2020, free -
Re Q [2020] EWHC 1109 (Fam)
An appeal from a case management decision made in proceedings concerning the welfare of a six-year-old girl. The parents (the mother European, the father English) had been separated for some years. The mother made allegations of sexual abuse against the father, and contact was resumed after a finding of fact that there had been no sexual impropriety. The conclusion of an expert psychological report was that it would be in the child's interests for the father to become the primary carer. The Guardian recommended an immediate change of residence. The mother applied for an adjournment on the basis that the matter could not be determined fairly at a remote hearing. The application was refused, but at the start of the hearing, after reading the decision in Re P (A Child: Remote Hearings) [2020] EWFC 32, the judge vacated the hearing, with the matter to be relisted before her for a face-to-face final hearing in due course. The father appealed on the grounds that the judge had misapplied the judgment in Re P; there had been no material change in the circumstances between the two hearings; insufficient weight had been afforded to the child's welfare; and insufficient regard was given to the overriding objective in FPR rule 1.1. Sir Andrew McFarlane, the President of the Family Division, allowed the appeal. There had not been new material in the father's position statement, and the judge's approach to the child's welfare had been in error. The decision to vacate the remote hearing would be set aside, and the matter remitted to the judge to redetermine the question of how and when the final hearing was to take place. Judgment, 05/06/2020, free -
W v H (divorce: financial remedies) [2020] EWFC B10
The financial remedies proceedings arising out of a divorce. The husband was a litigant in person. HHJ Hess ordered a spousal periodical payments order of £1,138 pcm, rising to £1,300 pcm in 2021, and £1,500 pcm in 2027, to continue until the death of either party, the wife's 60th birthday, or her remarriage. Top-up orders were made for the benefit of the children, and child periodical payment orders for the gap between secondary and tertiary education. The parties would each retain a 50% share in the family home. Pension sharing orders would provide equal incomes for the parties at a specified time in the future. Neither party had been entirely successful or entirely unsuccessful, and so there was no order for costs. Judgment, 04/06/2020, free -
X v Y [2020] EWHC 1116 (Fam)
An application brought by the applicant to rectify, as he saw it, a decree of divorce granted in 1997, in relation to a 1994 marriage in London. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the former wife, who had asserted that they were still married as a result of a prior 1993 ceremony involving the same couple in Madrid. Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, was satisfied that the earlier marriage had been a valid one. His order, made under FPR rule 4.1(6), would record that the marriage dissolved in 1997 was the true legal marriage between the couple, namely that celebrated in Madrid on 25 May 1993, and not the later English marriage which had no legal impact on their status. Judgment, 04/06/2020, free -
Easy as CEV? How to treat pensions upon divorce: W v H (divorce: financial remedies) [2020] EWFC B10
In this judgment, HHJ Edward Hess discussed three issues relating to the treatment of pensions upon divorce and considered the opinions of The Pension Advisory Group set out in their report, “A Guide to the Treatment of Pensions on Divorce”, published in July 2019. News, 28/05/2020, free -
Reappointment of Professor Nicholas Hopkins as Law Commissioner for property, family and trust law
The Secretary of State has announced the re-appointment of Professor Nicholas Hopkins as Law Commissioner for property, family and trust law. News, 28/05/2020, free -
Drop in private family law cases received by CAFCASS
The latest monthly statistics are available to view. News, 28/05/2020, free
