BJ v MJ (Financial Remedy: Overseas Trusts) [2011] EWHC 2708 (Fam), [2012] 1 FLR 667
Judgment date: 27 October 2011
Related
TR v ST (Letters of Request) [2026] EWHC 1785 (Fam)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/1785
WK v HN [2026] EWFC 169 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/169
50 Years on from Martin v Martin 1976 – Are Add-backs Fit for Purpose?
[2026] 2 FRJ 94. Add-backs were a useful mechanism to prevent one party’s unilateral dissipation of assets which unfairly prejudiced the non-dissipating spouse’s share. But something has gone wrong when the outcomes deviate too far from what the average person considers fair.
Related
TR v ST (Letters of Request) [2026] EWHC 1785 (Fam)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/1785
WK v HN [2026] EWFC 169 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/169
50 Years on from Martin v Martin 1976 – Are Add-backs Fit for Purpose?
[2026] 2 FRJ 94. Add-backs were a useful mechanism to prevent one party’s unilateral dissipation of assets which unfairly prejudiced the non-dissipating spouse’s share. But something has gone wrong when the outcomes deviate too far from what the average person considers fair.
Latest
The Astonishing Fate of Scott v Scott (1911-1913)
Secrecy in family cases from the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes (1858) to the Financial Remedies Court (2024)
The Consequences of Late Service of an N260 for Summary Assessment of Costs: Prejudice and Proportionality
The requirement to serve a statement of costs (Form N260) for the purposes of summary assessment of costs is set out in CPR PD 44 para 9.5. But what are the consequences of a breach of the rule to serve the statement of costs not less than 24 hours before the start of the hearing?
Is It Time for the Conclusions in Waggott to Be Reconsidered?
There is arguably a far greater understanding now than there was even as recently as 2018 of domestic abuse and the wide-reaching and long-lasting impact that it can have. Does this mean it is time for the Court of Appeal to reconsider the conclusions it reached in Waggott?