Latest updates
- The issue was whether or not Cohen J should determine, almost certainly by its dismissal, the wife's application for capital orders against the husband or whether he should further adjourn her capital claims. The husband had settled a trust with a very large sum of money, from which he had been irrevocably excluded after the marriage had broken down, and was in arrears with his periodical payments, but was living comfortably. Cohen J found that dismissing the wife's capital claims would be a matter of last resort, and adjourned them, with the proviso that they would be dismissed unless an application to restore them was made by 31 July 2022. Judgment, 07/08/2019, free
- Whether a judge who conducted an FDR appointment in protracted financial remedy proceedings could later hear applications in relation to the substantive order made in those same proceedings. The hearing was well under way when the husband reminded Holman J of the earlier FDR appointment. Both parties urged the judge to waive the rule, making reference to the overriding objective. He held that any waiver would run totally contrary to the absolute prohibition that the rule currently provides, and brought the hearing to a complete halt. It would have to be heard from scratch before another judge. Judgment, 05/08/2019, free
- The couple married in 2016 after a long relationship, and the husband died later that year. The appeal was concerned with whether an application under s 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 could be made out of time, whether a beneficial interest under a discretionary trust instead of outright provision amounted to reasonable financial provision, and the relevance of a "stand-still agreement" in place while an out of court settlement was pursued. Asplin LJ found that the explanation for the lapse of time in this case was clear, and it had been wrong of the judge to find that the wife had received sufficient advice about the time limit and the 1975 Act. King LJ and Baker LJ agreed. The court exercised the power in s 4 of the 1975 Act to allow the wife to bring a claim out of time. Judgment, 31/07/2019, free
- The former wife sought permission to bring a claim out of time for reasonable financial provision from the estate of the deceased. No provision had been made for her in the will, and a pre-nuptual agreement had provided that in the event of the marriage failing she would receive a lump sum of £10,000 and a flight to the Philippines, but no maintenance, property or financial provision. Master Shuman found that the former wife had not given a sufficent explanation for the delay, and decided that permission should not be granted. Judgment, 30/07/2019, free
- An arbitration had taken place to resolve pension division, spousal maintenance, and the division of assets pertaining to shares and a redundancy. The husband felt that there had been a miscalculation of the wife's income, affecting the amount of spousal maintenance due. Ms Clare Ambrose, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the application. The arbitrator's conduct fell far short of making this a case which required court intervention. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
Latest know-how
- In a tweet: H’s application to strike out W’s FR claim on the grounds it was vexatious/already compromised was dismissed. Case note, 04/07/2019, members only
- In a tweet: The courts’ poor service - which had effectively forced the parties into arbitration – did not dilute the magnetic importance of the arbitration agreement. Case note, 04/07/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Does breach of the lis pendens rule mean that a judgment cannot be recognised? Case note, 04/07/2019, members only
- Kate Strange, Pupil, 1 Hare Court, discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Habberfield v Habberfield. Case note, 07/06/2019, members only
- Florence Jones, Pupil, 1 Hare Court, writes a case summary of Vilinova v Vilinov & Anor [2019] EWHC 1107 (Fam). Case note, 31/05/2019, members only
Latest training
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 19th June 2019. Webcast, 20/06/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast on 30th April 2019. Webcast, 09/05/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar broadcast on 7th February 2019 Webcast, 11/02/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar broadcast 18th January 2019 Webcast, 14/01/2019, members only
- Recording of webinar broadcast live on 4th October 2018. Presented by Philip Cayford QC of 29 Bedford Row. Webcast, 09/10/2018, members only
Latest sources
- Coming into force immediately before EU exit day. SI, 11/04/2019, free
- This Statutory Instrument to be made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will ensure that the UK is ready, after EU Exit, to apply the 2007 Hague Convention on the international recovery of maintenance. SI, 12/10/2018, free
- In force 8th August 2018 Practice direction, 27/07/2018, free
- Form (external), 05/04/2017, free
- These Regulations amend and modify the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1989) (“the 1992 Regulations”). They amend the Child Support (Meaning of Child and New Calculation Rules) (Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/2785) (“the 2012 Regulations”) and the Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/614) (“the Ending Liability Regulations”). These Regulations also dis-apply the provisions in section 29(4) to (7) of the Child Support Act 1991 (c.48) in relation to a segment 5 case where liability is ended whilst these Regulations are in force. SI (external), 17/10/2016, free
Documentation
Using the Hub
Searching
Notices
T&Cs
Privacy
Legal Materials Copyright Statement & Disclaimer
Find out More
What's on the Hub
What's included in your membership
About Us
Contact Us
Stay up to date
Read about our free email alerts
Sign up here
Share