- Everything (41)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (2)
- Case note (14)
- News (1)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (0)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (23)
- Practice direction (1)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- The husband sought permission to appeal an arbitration award and an order that the award be set aside. He also asked the court not to approve a consent order in the terms of the award. Clare Ambrose, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered the general principles that apply to challenging arbitration awards dealing with financial disputes following divorce. Article, 21/05/2020, free
- The former wife's defence to claims for possession of the matrimonial home, and for weekly use and occupation payments of £5000, had referred to the terms of the financial remedy consent order, which in her view permitted her to occupy the property until it was sold. The county court judge had rejected her interpretation of the order. Fancourt J allowed her appeal, deciding that the correspondence on which the former husband had relied in the county court was not admissible as evidence of the meaning of the consent order. The county court judge erred in interpreting the order and the reasons he gave for reaching the conclusion that the appellant was a gratuitous licensee were mistaken. Judgment, 11/12/2019, free
- The former husband applied to set aside part of a consent order relating to maintenance payments. The former wife cross-appealed for enforcement of maintenance arrears. The husband claimed that the consent order had been fraudulently changed without his knowledge, and that his wife had sent emails in his name to the firm involved in drafting the consent order. In emails to her the husband had expressed his belief that the maintenance changes were a mere "paperwork exercise" to enable her to get a new mortgage. Moor J found that the expert handwriting evidence as to the signature on the consent order was of no assistance, but he was satisfied that the wife had perpetrated a fraud on the husband, and that she had sent fraudulent emails on his behalf. The relevant paragraph of the order was set aside, and replaced with a clean break order. The wife owed the husband £248,930 from the sale of the matrimonial home, to be paid within 28 days. Judgment, 11/12/2019, free
- The wife sought to set aside a consent order, on grounds that she had not had legal advice regarding the fairness of the consent order, and that being on Interpol's wanted list had placed her under undue influence. DJ Duddridge dismissed the application. When a consent order has been approved it must be assumed that the judge had scrutinised the order and was satisfied that its terms were fair. Article, 29/04/2019, free
- In a tweet: New undertakings for W where an unforeseen change of circumstances undermined the basis of the original consent order Case note, 26/10/2018, members only
- Husband's appeal against a judgment, in which the wife was released from various undertakings contained in a consent order, was allowed. Judgment, 20/08/2018, free
- In force 8th August 2018 Practice direction, 27/07/2018, free
- In a tweet: Replacement undertakings ordered following significant change of circumstances after clean break Case note, 11/04/2018, members only
- Appeal against a ruling that the wife should be discharged from her undertaking. The appeal was allowed but the judge said that in fairness to the husband, replacement undertakings should be put in place. Judgment, 01/03/2018, free
- The terms of a foreign consent order having been implemented, the wife made an application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 seeking substantial additional provision for herself several years later (there having been no change in her circumstances). The judge ordered the appellant husband to pay to the wife a lump sum of £1,148,480 together with provision for the children of the marriage. The husband appealed against this order, it being unusual for an order to be made under Part III where a foreign order is in place. The court ruled that it was not appropriate to make an order under Part III in this case. Judgment, 05/10/2017, free