Ball v Ball [2017] EWHC 1750 (Ch)
Judgment date: 02 August 2017
Related
Armstrong v Armstrong & Anor (Re Remedy) [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch)
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC sitting as a High Court judge. Judgment considering the appropriate remedy for a claimant who had proved his proprietary estoppel claim and his alternative claim for entitlement under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 Act.
Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam)
Williams J. Judgment to determine reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the spouse and son of the deceased following limited provision for them in the Will and mismanagement of the Will by the executrix.
Bad Behaviour and Broken Bonds: A Comparison of Conduct in 1973 and 1975 Act Claims
Introduction
Fifty years ago, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) was enacted in an expansion of the court’s statutory powers for financial provision on death.[[1]] Two years earlier, Parliament had enacted the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to alter the court’s
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 3 | Winter
Related
Armstrong v Armstrong & Anor (Re Remedy) [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch)
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC sitting as a High Court judge. Judgment considering the appropriate remedy for a claimant who had proved his proprietary estoppel claim and his alternative claim for entitlement under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 Act.
Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam)
Williams J. Judgment to determine reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the spouse and son of the deceased following limited provision for them in the Will and mismanagement of the Will by the executrix.
Bad Behaviour and Broken Bonds: A Comparison of Conduct in 1973 and 1975 Act Claims
Introduction
Fifty years ago, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) was enacted in an expansion of the court’s statutory powers for financial provision on death.[[1]] Two years earlier, Parliament had enacted the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to alter the court’s
Latest
When Might an Arbitration Not Be Entirely Private and Confidential?
One of the great virtues of family law arbitration is its ability to provide the parties with confidentiality and privacy for their dispute. Unlike court proceedings, the parties will not face the risk of the hearing taking place in open court with curious members of the public present.
National Iranian Oil Company v Retirement, Savings and Welfare Fund of Oil Industry Workers v Crescent Gas Corporation Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 211 and Its Implications for TLATA Cases
The Court of Appeal confirms that a declaration of trust respecting land or any interest therein requires the personal signature of the settlor, not a third party on their behalf. This has implications where it is alleged a trust of land has arisen by virtue of an express declaration of trust.
Bundle of Joy: New Practice Direction on Bundles, Position Statements etc., Effective 2 March 2026
Practice Guidance Update No. 6 of 2025 contains amendments to a range of existing FPR PDs, including a comprehensive re-writing of PD 27A, which started life as the ‘Bundles Direction’.