Latest updates
- The former husband applied for a legal services payment order pursuant to section 22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. As matters currently stood, neither party owned assets of any significant value. The former wife had been engaged in offshore litigation, which so far had proved unsuccessful, reducing but not eliminating the likelihood of recovery from that source. Roberts J was satisfied that legal services funding was not an option open to the former husband, nor was he a candidate for a commercial litigation funding arrangement. Focused legal advice could serve to narrow the issues which were currently preventing a settlement. The question then was whether the former wife was in a position to satisfy a legal services provision order. After considering the criteria in section 22ZB(1)(a)–(g), Roberts J decided that she would be able to procure the funding to meet such an order, and would not thereby be exposed to undue hardship or prevented from obtaining her own legal advice. The former wife was ordered to pay the former husband £95,000. Judgment, 21/11/2020, free
- Mr Justice Cohen recently gave judgment in MB v EB (No. 2) [2019] EWHC 3676 (Fam), and sounded a cautionary note to parties in needs-based cases in financial remedy proceedings who run up unreasonably large legal costs under the (mistaken) belief that the financially stronger party will be ordered to pay them. Referring to the recent amendments to FPR 2010 Practice Direction 28A, Cohen J was firm in his judgment that it was not for the wife, in this case, to ‘bankroll this litigation’ which he found to have been unreasonably conducted by the husband. This case serves as a warning to parties who have a needs-based claim that this does not give them a so-called ‘license to litigate’, and underlines the importance of making sensible proposals in negotiations. News, 25/02/2020, free
- Judicial consultation process started in February 2016 News, 26/02/2019, free
- The court injuncted the husband from paying any further money to his solicitors unless he paid an equal amount (i.e. pound for pound) to the wife's solicitors. Judgment, 19/09/2018, free
- Appeal against an order requiring the husband to pay the wife £2,500 per month by way of interim periodical payments until further order and to pay directly to her solicitors, £3,000 per month by way of a legal fees allowance order. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 18/05/2018, free
Latest know-how
- In a tweet: H injuncted from paying his solicitors and counsel unless he paid an equal amount to W’s solicitors towards arrears and legal services payment order Case note, 26/10/2018, members only
- Standard family order as approved by the President 30 November 2017 Order, 29/11/2017, free
- For use when seeking help for a parent without litigation capacity Practice note, 17/10/2016, free
- In a tweet: Legal costs funding order may be made for costs already incurred Case note, 21/09/2016, members only
- Cross-examination of child by judge where the father, against whom allegations had been made, was not represented or eligible for legal aid. Case note, 17/06/2015, members only
Latest training
- Following on from our Introduction to Unbundling, broadcast on 2 February 2017, this webinar looks at how to make sure that unbundling works for your firm. Webcast, 03/04/2017, members only
- Webinar recorded on 15 January 2015. Dafydd Griffiths of 29 Bedford Row reviews the private children law cases of 2014 and picks out some themes to look out for in 2015. Webcast, 15/01/2015, members only
- Webinar recorded on 5 June 2013 covering the new costs regimes and its impact for family cases, an update on case funding and direct access and news of the single family court. Webcast, 07/06/2013, members only
- Get the latest on what's happening to family law with our next webinar on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 - registration is free. Webcast, 23/04/2013, free