Arbili v Arbili [2015] EWCA Civ 542
Judgment date: 22 May 2015
Related
FRJ – ‘Well, He (or She) Didn’t Ask!’ – the Impact of Non-Disclosure When the Question Isn’t Asked
Is it a shield to non-disclosure by one party during financial remedy proceedings if the other party could (and perhaps should) have asked? The duty on parties to give full and frank financial disclosure is not merely a private obligation between them; it is a duty to the court.
Housing Particulars: Mind The Gap
What can the court do when there's a significant gap between the bottom of the applicant’s range and the top of the respondent’s range? Can the court take up the invitation made by counsel to ‘conduct its own research on Rightmove if it wishes’?
Rt. Hon. The Countess Karen Anne Spencer v Rt. Hon. Ninth Earl Spencer, Charles Edward Maurice Spencer [2025] EWFC 431
Peel J. Appeal by W for further details of an arbitration award to be disclosed to the associated KBD proceedings and to ‘any persons’. Peel J permitted minimal further disclosure in order to provide the King’s Bench court with full context but emphasised the confidential nature of arbitration.
Related
FRJ – ‘Well, He (or She) Didn’t Ask!’ – the Impact of Non-Disclosure When the Question Isn’t Asked
Is it a shield to non-disclosure by one party during financial remedy proceedings if the other party could (and perhaps should) have asked? The duty on parties to give full and frank financial disclosure is not merely a private obligation between them; it is a duty to the court.
Housing Particulars: Mind The Gap
What can the court do when there's a significant gap between the bottom of the applicant’s range and the top of the respondent’s range? Can the court take up the invitation made by counsel to ‘conduct its own research on Rightmove if it wishes’?
Rt. Hon. The Countess Karen Anne Spencer v Rt. Hon. Ninth Earl Spencer, Charles Edward Maurice Spencer [2025] EWFC 431
Peel J. Appeal by W for further details of an arbitration award to be disclosed to the associated KBD proceedings and to ‘any persons’. Peel J permitted minimal further disclosure in order to provide the King’s Bench court with full context but emphasised the confidential nature of arbitration.
Latest
The Curious Case of CA 1989 Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3)
Paragraph 1 of CA 1989 Schedule 1 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief against parents’. Paragraph 2 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief for persons over eighteen’. As recent cases have demonstrated this structure causes complications.
The 2026 FRC Guide: What Practitioners Need to Know
Watch the recording of ‘The 2026 FRC Guide: What Practitioners Need to Know’, first broadcast on Wednesday 6th May 2026 with the authors of the new FRC Guide - HHJ Edward Hess, Nicholas Allen KC, Michael Allum, Lily Mottahedan and Rhys Taylor
Mazur in the Court of Appeal: the Judgment That Saved Half the Profession from Accidental Criminality
The Court of Appeal rewrites the landscape of ‘conduct of litigation’ – Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369.