- 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)
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Trustee in bankruptcy was seeking to renew his application for permission to appeal against an order striking out his claim for a lump sum or a property adjustment order under ss.23 and 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Cross-appeal to set aside an order in so far as it gave the Trustee permission to appeal against the decision striking out his claim that the payments were transactions at an undervalue pursuant to s.339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Judgment, 28/11/2016, free
- Appeal against a decision refusing to set aside a Consent Order made in financial remedy proceedings following the dissolution of the appellant's civil partnership with her partner who has since died. The basis of the application to set aside the consent order (which was made after the death of the respondent) was that the deceased had been guilty of material non-disclosure in the financial remedy proceedings. The judge dismissed the appellant's application, which he regarded as being "without merit", and "doomed to failure", saying that allowing the case to proceed would be contrary to the court's overriding objective and his (the judge's) duty actively to case manage an application. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted for directions before a High Court judge. Judgment, 17/10/2016, free
- Costs hearing which ruled that the W should pay the H 50% of his costs relating to his successful application that a consent order should be set aside due to material non-disclosure by the W. Judgment, 11/10/2016, free
- Parties had reached agreement that the wife be paid a lump sum of £300,000. The issue here was whether the details of the settlement could be made public and whether the husband should pay the wife's costs relating to a Dean summons which was brought by her solicitors but then abandoned after the husband relented on the publicity issue. Judgment, 11/06/2016, free
- As part of their divorce settlement, the parties agreed that the ex-wife would keep the first £100,000 of any inheritance from her mother and the balance over that amount would be split equally between them. The mother left exactly £100,000 to the ex-wife with the remaining £150,000 going to the ex-wife's children. The ex-husband brought a probate claim to challenge the validity of the ex-wife's mother's will, alleging that it was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The Deputy Master decided that H had no sufficient interest in the will and therefore had no standing to bring the claim. The ex-husband's appeal against that decision was allowed. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free