author Jessie King Jessie King is a director in the forensic accounting & investigations team at Quantuma. Her areas of expertise include matrimonial disputes for which she is experienced in preparing SJE reports, reviewing business valuations and analysing Form Es. Related Read the journal Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring Related Latest 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. The Reluctant Pension Credit Member [2026] 1 FRJ 39. In the case of AP v TP [2025] EWFC 190 (B) a financial remedy order was made by consent, following an FDR, which included a pension sharing order in W’s favour. Difficulties began when W failed to provide the necessary information to permit the pension share to be implemented. 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’? is curated by The Leaders In Family Law Books & Software EXPLORE OUR PRODUCTS
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.
The Reluctant Pension Credit Member [2026] 1 FRJ 39. In the case of AP v TP [2025] EWFC 190 (B) a financial remedy order was made by consent, following an FDR, which included a pension sharing order in W’s favour. Difficulties began when W failed to provide the necessary information to permit the pension share to be implemented.
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’?