- Everything (38)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (1)
- Case note (14)
- News (1)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (0)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (21)
- Practice direction (1)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- 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
- In a tweet: Unsuccessful attempt by W to re-open a 2005 order. Lengthy litigation history. Case note, 12/06/2017, members only
- Husband's application to set aside a previous consent order (made in 2010), his argument being that that the move of the two children from the wife to the husband in 2012 represented a change of circumstances sufficient to justify an application under FPR 2010 Rule 4.1(6) for the revocation of a paragraph of the order so that all five properties in the portfolio should, instead of continuing to be the wife’s property, be transferred back to the husband. The application was dismissed. Judgment, 06/03/2017, free
- Wife's appeal against the dismissal of her application to set aside a consent order in financial remedy proceedings which was made in 2005. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 06/03/2017, free