A v N [2025] EWFC 371 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/371
Recorder Christopher Stirling
Related
OO v QQ [2025] EWFC 310 (B)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/310.html
Refusal of Application for Stay of Divorce Petition [2025] EWFC 377 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/377
A v N [2025] EWFC 371 (B)
Recorder Christopher Stirling. Final hearing in FR proceedings involving an intervener claim from W's elderly mother. Guidance given as to how the representations of third parties should be balanced against the needs of the spouses in accordance with s 24A(6) of the MCA 1973.
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 2 | Summer
Related
OO v QQ [2025] EWFC 310 (B)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/310.html
Refusal of Application for Stay of Divorce Petition [2025] EWFC 377 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/377
A v N [2025] EWFC 371 (B)
Recorder Christopher Stirling. Final hearing in FR proceedings involving an intervener claim from W's elderly mother. Guidance given as to how the representations of third parties should be balanced against the needs of the spouses in accordance with s 24A(6) of the MCA 1973.
Latest
Parliamentary Debate Reveals Government’s Latest Intentions for Financial Remedies and Cohabitation Law Reform
The Government gave a significant update on Monday 10 November 2025 in the House of Lords regarding its plans for financial remedies and cohabitation law reform. It signals a major overhaul of how the law treats relationship breakdown across all types of couples.
Promises Unkept: Unpaid Child Maintenance and the Price of Inaction
Unpaid child maintenance remains one of the most persistent and under-addressed financial injustices affecting separated families in England and Wales. The failures of the CMS destabilise the very integrity of financial provision for children post-separation.
Finality and Funding: a Further Thought on CC v UU Concerning the Availability of LSPOs for Enforcement Proceedings
In the case of CC v UU, concerning post-final order LSPOs, did Peel J fall into error? Should the judgment have been decided differently?