Latest updates
- 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
- After some delay, the husband sought a stay of a periodical payments order, arguing that the judge had fallen into error in treating his future earning capacity as a matrimonial asset which could be shared. In circumstances where there was no final version of the judgment, nor a sealed order, Francis J held that it was unfair to hold the relevant time limits against the husband. He agreed that the judge had been plainly wrong, and reduced the annual payments from £150,000 to £68,000. This hearing had been listed for only a day, causing further delay, and he stressed that there is a general duty on counsel and solicitors to inform the court if a time estimate is plainly incorrect. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
- The father applied for permission to appeal orders relating to financial remedies, care of the two children and non-molestation, claiming in particular that the assessment of income had been improper, and that there had been bias and error on the part of the judge. Theis J refused permission to appeal, except with regard to a narrow but important issue regarding the child arrangements order. Judgment, 19/07/2019, free
- A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine the length of the marriage, the impact of the separation agreement, and whether there was any marital acquest. Cohen J concluded that the parties, a businesswoman and an artist, separated in 2004. There was no marital acquest; the wife had been dependent upon her family's wealth throughout. The agreement had been what the husband had sought. The only ground for vitiating the agreement would be if it did not meet his needs. Judgment, 27/06/2019, 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
- A case summary of Vasilyeva v Shemyakin [2019] EWHC 932 (Fam), by a Pupil at 1 Hare Court. Case note, 10/05/2019, members only
- The court ruled that an earning capacity was not capable of being a matrimonial asset to which the sharing principle applies Case note, 15/05/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Unsuccessful attempt to re-open FR proceedings Case note, 15/05/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Broad flexible approach adopted when applying the sharing principle to non-matrimonial property Case note, 06/10/2017, members only
- In a tweet: No development in the guidance on special contribution cases Case note, 10/05/2017, members only
Latest training
- Recording of webinar broadcast on 7th February 2019 Webcast, 11/02/2019, members only
- 12 questions on 3 cases summarised in the May 2018 Family Law Hub Digest CPD course, 05/06/2018, members only
- Mena Ruparel and Mark Penston unpick the complex task of understanding the different types of remuneration that might crop up in financial remedy proceedings. Webcast, 19/04/2018, members only
- Joe Switalski, of 29 Bedford Row, reviews the current case law and judicial thinking surrounding 'short marriages' in financial remedy proceedings. Recorded 19 March 2018. Webcast, 21/03/2018, members only
- Alexis Campbell QC and Charlotte Trace, of 29 Bedford Row, review the key financial remedy cases and themes from the past 12 months and look at how they will affect judicial thinking and your own cases in the year to come. Webcast, 16/03/2018, members only
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