The online information & webinar resource for private family lawyers.
New to watch
Crypto-assets in Divorce Proceedings
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)
New to read
-
AZ v BZ (financial remedies appeal) [2020] EWFC 28
An appeal by the husband against the final order made by a district judge in an application for financial remedies. The parties had married in 2013 and separated in 2018, and in the course of the marriage the wife had received a large settlement from the NHS in compensation for clinical negligence. The husband argued that the final order was unfair because it departed from equality in giving 99% of the assets to the wife, that the district judge had gone too far in making allowances for the wife being a litigant in person, that the district judge's assessment of the party's respective needs was flawed, and that the district judge should have taken into account the wife's post-separation spending. HHJ Vincent decided that the appeal should be allowed. The district judge's decision to admit at the last minute an extract from counsel’s advice in respect of the clinical negligence claim had been wrong. The damages award formed part of the matrimonial assets. The district judge had fallen into error in her assessment of the parties’ respective needs, and in concluding that the wife’s needs outweighed the consideration of the husband’s needs, leading her to make an award which was unfair. HHJ Vincent's substituted assessment differed from the district judge's in one regard: a property in Spain would be sold and the proceeds split fifty-fifty. Judgment, 02/07/2020, free -
S v H [2020]: Mind the Prenup Potholes
The parties met in 2010, having both been previously married and divorced. W was the financially stronger party, with accumulated assets of £3m and a net income of over £100k. By contrast, H had transferred most his capital assets to his first wife and had no income. A prenuptial agreement was signed five days before the wedding which took place abroad in June 2010. The parties each gave a “dramatically different account” of how the decision to enter into a prenuptial agreement was reached; whilst H said was “taken by surprise” when he was summoned to a notary’s office to sign a ready-drafted document, W said that after careful deliberation, the parties jointly instructed a notary to draft the agreement. Neither party took legal advice before signing the document and no formal disclosure process was undertaken. Article, 01/07/2020, free -
RH v SV (Pension Apportionment: Reasons) [2020] EWFC B23
An appeal in financial remedy proceedings, regarding pension sharing and section 28(1A) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The parties were married in 2005 and separated in 2017, with one daughter who now lived with the mother. The wife argued that the overall order was not fair to her, and that the pension share was too small. Despite his concerns about the apparent ring fencing of the pension pot, HHJ Richard Robinson concluded that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusions that he did on the evidence that he heard, and that there were no sufficient reasons to interfere with his decision. He came to the same conclusion regarding the section 28(1A) bar. Judgment, 26/06/2020, free -
G v T [2020] EWHC 1613 (Fam)
An application for financial remedies, following divorce proceedings. The couple married in 2000 and they separated in 2017. They had two daughters, aged 8 and 3. Mr Nicholas Cusworth QC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge) stated that the single most important dispute between the parties was over the value of the husband's interest in a company focused on proprietary trading and market making. He took the husband's shares to have a gross value of £43.4m and a net value of £35.3m, assuming a realisation at CGT rates. He found that a fair spread of the husband's liability would be for him to pay £2,787,595 in 2020, £5m in 2021, a further £5m in 2022, and then a final payment of £4m in 2023. He would be able to withdraw those sums from his interest in the business with no more than proportionate disruption to the company, when balanced against the desirability of providing the wife's award to her and achieving a clean break as soon as practicable. Judgment, 25/06/2020, free -
Greater protections for survivors of domestic abuse and their children with major court overhaul
Today (Thursday 25th June) the government has announced a major overhaul of family courts to protect domestic abuse victims. News, 25/06/2020, free -
Latest family court statistics show a decrease in the number of cases
Figures from January to March 2020 released News, 25/06/2020, free -
JK v LM [2020] EWHC 1566 (Fam)
The mother applied for the summary return of three children from Wales, where they lived with the father, to the Republic of Ireland. A fourth child lived with the mother. During a period of homelessness, the mother had asked the father to care for the four children on a temporary basis in his home in Wales. Upon her finding accommodation, the father had declined to return them, and she had collected the youngest from his school and taken him back to Ireland. The court had to determine: the nature of the agreement between the parents; whether the father had wrongfully retained the children; whether the children had been habitually resident in the Republic of Ireland; whether an article 13 exception had been established; and, if it had, whether the court should exercise its discretion not to order the children's return. Nigel Poole QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, concluded that the evidence did not establish that the mother had secured suitable accommodation by the given time. He was not satisfied that the father was guilty of wrongful retention of the children at any point prior to the application being made, and so the Convention and Regulations could not assist the mother in her application for summary return. The children's time in Ireland had been chaotic and peripatetic; they remained habitually resident in the United Kingdom throughout. The defence under Article 13(b) was made out: they should not be expected to tolerate returning to Ireland without the reassurance of stability and security. Had he found that there had been a wrongful retention, he would have had no hesitation in exercising his discretion so as to refuse return. The mother's application for summary return was dismissed. Judgment, 24/06/2020, free -
Pensions in needs-based cases: KM v CV [2020] EWFC B22 and RH v SV [2020] EWFC B23
Two decisions concerning the division of pensions in needs-based cases by HHJ Robinson, sitting in the Medway Family Court, were recently published on BAILII. They are KM v CV [2020] EWFC B22 and RH v SV [2020] EWFC B23. Along with HHJ Hess’ recent judgment in W v H (divorce: financial remedies) [2020] EWFC B10 (case summary here), it provides further useful guidance on how judges and practitioners dealing with smaller needs-based cases should approach pensions. Article, 24/06/2020, free