Family Law Hub

Financial Provision

Latest updates

  • A wife’s claim for financial remedy orders, involving properties, companies and debts owed by the couple to the wife's father. The valuation of a company was a major issue, and there was a question as to whether a terminal value should be added. Cohen J preferred the wife's argument that it should not, and disregarded an unreliable best case scenario forecast. He declined to order a sale of shares, as desired by the wife. The husband was to pay the wife a lump sum of £8,948,930, to be reduced pro rata if his shareholding was diminished, plus £15,000 a year per child for school fees. One property would be transferred to the husband, the other to the wife. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • A costs order had been made against Mrs Hayes. She sought a stay, because there was a question as to whether Mr Hayes, if required to do so following the conclusion of another claim, would be able to repay the money. Henry Carr J decided that it was unnecessary to grant a stay, given that Mr Hayes had undertaken not to seek enforcement until the other claim was determined, and adjourned the hearing until that had happened. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • the HCCH Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (“Child Support Convention”) enters into force for Kazakhstan, following the deposit of its instrument of accession on 6 June 2017. News, 14/06/2019, free
  • Court-ordered contact arrangements had broken down, and so the father lost credit for shared care and the Child Maintenance Service increased the amount of his weekly payments. He appealed against this. AI Poole QC, Judge of the Upper Tribunal, understood the father's frustration but refused the appeal. To do otherwise in this situation would not be in the interests of the child. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free
  • A freezing order on a property was due to be reconsidered. It had been made in favour of Mrs Chaudhri following default in the payment of a lump sum. Mostyn J found that the applicant had twice failed to pursue her claim in relation to the property, and it would be a manifest abuse were a claim now to be allowed to be mounted and protected by a freezing injunction. The freezing order on the property was discharged, but the worldwide freezing order made earlier would remain in force and be transferred to the Family Court. Any further applications for freezing relief should be made to the same Family Court and heard only at High Court judge level. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Latest sources

Copyright 

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.

Disclaimer

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