Family Law Hub


Latest updates

  • The judge had allowed the husband's appeal from a maintenance pending suit order, principally on the basis that the the deputy district judge had "failed to apply the law appropriately" and had not undertaken any "critical analysis of the wife's needs". The wife now appealed against that decision. In Moylan LJ's view, the deputy district judge had undertaken a sufficient analysis of the relevant factors to support her decision, including the wife's listed needs and likely income, and the husband's budget. She had been entitled to include the amount sought for school fees, and had reached a fair decision as to what level of maintenance would be reasonable. In those circumstances, there was no basis on which the judge could properly interfere with the decision. Asplin and Macur LJJ agreed. The appeal would be allowed, with the judge's order being set aside, including the costs order. The maintenance pending suit order made by the deputy district judge would be restored, save for a paragraph dealing with the mortgage. Judgment, 22/01/2021, free
  • The wife's judgment summons alleged the accrual of significant arrears. The husband claimed that he was subject to cashflow difficulties. Mostyn J was satisfied that there had been a sufficient change of circumstances and a sufficiency of evidential proof to justify a suspension, rather than a variation. The judgment summons would be adjourned while a private FDR took place. Judgment, 18/12/2019, free
  • In a tweet: Debts were a fiction created by H to defeat W’s claims Judgment, 26/10/2018, free
  • An interesting case involving the workings of the EU Maintenance Regulations, in particular: 1) that choice of court agreements following Article 4 can be quite informal, even through correspondence between solicitors; 2) that 'entering an appearance' following Article 5 can include taking steps within the proceedings such as exchange of Forms E or filing of a statement; and 3) that 'on an exceptional basis' within Article 7 is interpreted as 'by way of exception' and not 'extraordinary', widening the scope for use of this article. Also this case potentially widens the scope for Schedule 1 cases where the child does not reside in England. Judgment, 23/11/2015, free
  • Application for maintenance pending suit. W seeking not less that £270k pa and the H offering £202k. Moylan J settles for the latter partly because the wife's claims did not arise from need. Judgment, 11/02/2015, free

Latest know-how


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item