Family Law Hub

• Everything (1370)
• Model letter (0)
• Practice note (17)
• Precedent (2)
• Uploads (0)
• Tools (0)
• Article (6)
• Case note (335)
• News (225)
• Polls (0)
• CPD course (0)
• CPD diploma (0)
• Training note (0)
• Webinar (48)
• Downloads (0)
• Form (47)
• Judgment (551)
• Practice direction (7)
• Rule (0)
• SI (0)
• Statute (0)
• International regs (0)

• Don’t tick the box: T v T (variation of a pension sharing order and underfunded schemes) [2021] EWFC B67
  In this case HHJ Hess (‘the judge’) considered an application for the variation of a pension sharing order. Case note, 18/11/2021, free
• The risks of ‘nihilistic litigation’: Crowther v Crowther and Ors (Financial Remedies) (Rev 1) [2021] EWFC 88
  In this case Peel J (‘the judge’) dealt with the final hearing in an application by Caroline Crowther (‘W’) for financial remedies following her divorce from Paul Crowther (‘H’). Case note, 05/11/2021, free
• Maintaining Appearances: TMB v PLB [2021] EWFC 66
  In this case Sir Jonathan Cohen (‘the judge’) had to determine the ambit of the applicant wife’s (‘W’) claims for financial remedy orders. Specifically, this concerned whether the English court had jurisdiction to determine W’s maintenance claim, given the effect of Council Regulation (EC) 4/2009 (‘the Maintenance Regulation’). Case note, 07/10/2021, free
• “Paranoia and delusional thinking”: Q v Q [2021] EWHC 1757 (Fam)
  Case note, 01/07/2021, free
• The ‘folly’ of litigating ‘about where to litigate’: C (A Child) [2021] EWFC 32
  Case note, 22/04/2021, free
• ‘Six years of stressful, contentious, ruinously expensive and psychologically damaging litigation warfare’: Villiers v Villiers [2021] EWFC 23
  Listed before Mostyn J for final disposal was an application for maintenance under s.27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (“MCA 1973”) made by the wife (“W”), along with a Judgment Summons issued by W, and an application made by the husband (“H”) to set aside, or stay enforcement of, an interim order for maintenance and legal services provision. This judgment follows the judgment of the Supreme Court from July 2020, Villiers v Villiers [2020] UKSC 30. A summary of that judgment can be found here. Case note, 19/03/2021, free
• Exercising the Thwaite jurisdiction: Kicinski v Pardi [2021] EWHC 499 (Fam)
  Lieven J considered an appeal made against a decision not to exercise the Thwaite jurisdiction. Case note, 11/03/2021, free
• Millions in maintenance: FRB v DCA (No. 3) [2020] EWHC 3696 (Fam) and (No. 4) [2021] EWHC 116 (Fam)
  Cohen J heard applications made by both husband and wife following the handing down of judgment after a final hearing between the parties in March 2020. He gave two separate judgments. Case note, 25/02/2021, free
• Costs and conspiracy claims: Crowther v Crowther [2020] EWHC 3555 (Fam)
  Lieven J was concerned with an application for indemnity costs, where allegations of conspiracy and fraud had been made but were then withdrawn at the eleventh hour. Case note, 11/01/2021, free
• An ‘overvalued, and in some respects unrealistic’ claim: Z (Schedule 1: Legal Costs Funding Order; Interim Financial Provision) [2020] EWFC 80
  Cobb J was concerned with interim applications made under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 in respect of a child who was just three weeks old. Case note, 07/12/2020, free

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 49

New to watch

• Watch Baroness Hale's Keynote Speech at the At A Glance Conference

• Jurisdiction in Practice Post Brexit & Post Lugano with Mark Ablett, Pump Court Chambers

• 'Contempt of Court - All Change'

• 'Ask the Arbitrators' | Part 2 - Financial IFLA Scheme

Notices
T&Cs
Privacy
Legal Materials Copyright Statement & Disclaimer

Find out More
What's on the Hub
About Us
Contact Us

Stay up to date
Read about our free email alerts
Sign up here