Family Law Hub

Financial Provision

Latest updates

  • The district judge had found that the husband was the beneficial owner of a Panamanian property, held by a company of which his mother owned all the shares. King LJ found that there had been no procedural irregularity in that finding, and it was not contaminated by an avoidance of disposition order that had also, erroneously, been made. Moylan LJ and Leggatt LJ agreed, with the latter also observing that judges should be careful, when given alternative bases for their decisions, not to introduce confusion into what would otherwise be straightforward factual findings. Judgment, 11/10/2019, free
  • This is the first of two articles concerning challenging a nil assessment by the Child Maintenance Service. This article covers two potential routes for applying for variation: income not yet taken into account, and diversion of income. Next week, we will consider two further reasons: unearned income and notional income from assets. News, 03/10/2019, free
  • The father lived in Oman, the children and mother in England. The father was in breach of orders made in Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 proceedings. The mother applied for a child arrangements order to the effect that the children live with her. The court in Oman had ordered that custody of the children should be removed from the mother, despite the father having previously undertaken not to issue proceedings in Oman. Holman J was in no doubt that it was in the best interests of the children to continue to live in England with their mother. There was no possibility of them visiting Oman, due to the risk of them not being returned. Any contact with the father in England would have to occur while he was sober, and in the presence of a third party to prevent abduction. Judgment, 20/09/2019, free
  • The mother wrongfully removed the son to the UK. Her application for asylum on the basis of being a victim of domestic violence was granted on appeal. The father was applying under the Hague Convention for summary return, and in this hearing applied for disclosure of the asylum files relating to the mother and child, contending that his Article 6 and 8 rights could not otherwise be preserved. The Secretary of State for the Home Department resisted disclosure. HHJ Corbett was satisfied that the impact of disclosure upon the asylum process would outweigh the impact of non-disclosure on the Article 6 and 8 rights of the father and child. The application for disclosure was refused. Judgment, 05/09/2019, free
  • To be broadcast 1pm, Tuesday 1st October 2019. News, 02/09/2019, members only

Latest know-how

  • The husband unsuccessfully appealed an order to transfer the legal title in 42 properties into his sole name (and release the wife from the associated mortgages). Case note, 16/10/2019, members only
  • In brief: Williams J handed down a three month prison sentence (suspended for seven days) to a husband who had failed to file a Form E. Case note, 16/10/2019, members only
  • Holman J refused to order the husband’s committal to prison for failing to pay maintenance Case note, 16/10/2019, members only
  • In brief: The Court of Appeal unusually made a reporting restriction and anonymisation order in financial remedy proceedings. Case note, 16/10/2019, members only
  • In a tweet: Wife fails to establish divorce jurisdiction in England and Wales. Case note, 16/10/2019, members only

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