Family Law Hub


Latest updates

  • The couple had been separated since 2012 and divorced since 2014. They had two children, aged 13 and 15. The husband was in very substantial breach of his financial obligations under a previous order, to the extent of £2.6m. The husband claimed that he was insolvent and could be made bankrupt by any one of his many creditors. In HHJ Hess's view, the husband was asking her to re-open the overall quantum of a lump sum by instalments which had been part of a consent order which had been intended to be a final package. Since he was a substantial cause of his own problems, she could not regard those problems as rendering it unjust to hold him to the original order. Despite his current difficulties, the order would not be discharged by bankruptcy proceedings or by time limitation, so the former wife might one day be able to enforce it. The capital order was varied to adopt a new, agreed figure, and the child periodical payments order was varied in accordance with an agreement reached between the parties. Judgment, 08/08/2020, free
  • A judgment in financial remedy proceedings. The marriage had lasted six and a half years. The wife had sought the full range of financial relief in her application, but, the husband being bankrupt, the case she in fact ran was to seek a dismissal of all claims by both parties, and rely upon a prenuptial agreement which provided for a separation of property. The husband sought a lump sum of £739,000, sufficient to discharge his bankruptcy, provide for his living expenses and purchase a three-bedroomed house. In HHJ Booth's judgment, there was no value in the prenuptial agreement. There was no formal disclosure, and no legal advice given to either party. This was a needs case. Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as amended, required him to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. He ordered a transfer of 60% of the wife's pension, and payment of a lump sum of £270,000 to discharge the husband's bankruptcy and pay his legal fees. A fund of money would be provided for the husband to buy a house in his name, subject to a trust in favour of the wife, allowing her to recover the capital advance at such time as the husband no longer needed that home. Judgment, 27/04/2020, 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
  • Appeal from the decision dismissing the amended application by the Appellant to set aside the order authorising substituted service on him of the bankruptcy petition, annul the bankruptcy order made against him and dismiss the bankruptcy petition. Judgment, 01/03/2019, free
  • Appeal concerning correct route for alteration of substantive capital adjustment orders. Judgment, 26/03/2018, free

Latest know-how

Latest training


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