author Sir Mathew Thorpe Sir Mathew Thorpe, Barrister from 1961, in silk from 1980, Family Division Judge (1988 to 1995), Lord Justice of Appeal (1995 to 2013) and Deputy Head of Family Justice and Head of International Family Justice (2005 to 2013). Related Read the journal Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring Related Latest Portals: Bringing It All Together Tips and tricks on using the digital court portals from a member of the stakeholder group for the profession, including how to avoid the double login, when to denote documents as confidential, and how to prompt a response from the court. 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. is curated by The Leaders In Family Law Books & Software EXPLORE OUR PRODUCTS
Portals: Bringing It All Together Tips and tricks on using the digital court portals from a member of the stakeholder group for the profession, including how to avoid the double login, when to denote documents as confidential, and how to prompt a response from the court.
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.