Cases
-
Bailey v Bailey (Committal) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 5 (4 February 2022)4 February 2022
Peel J.W’s application for committal of H and two others for breaches of financial remedy order following ‘almost interminable’ proceedings. H argued that the earlier financial remedy judgment (as opposed to order) was not admissible in the current applic…
- Cases
- Foreign Assets
- Admissibility of Civil Judgments in Other Proceedings
- Committal Applications and Judgment Summonses
- International Enforcement
-
Goddard-Watts v Goddard Watts [2022] EWHC 711 (Fam)3 February 2022
Sir Jonathan Cohen.Second rehearing of W’s application for financial remedy orders, two previous orders having been set aside due to H’s non-disclosure. W’s application based on H’s knowledge at the time of the (second) judgment that he was about to recei…
- Cases
- Disclosure
- Costs
- Procedure on Non-Disclosure
-
Loggie v Loggie [2022] EWFC 227 January 2022
Mostyn J.Wife’s application for husband to indemnify her in relation to unexpectedly high fees of SJE in long-running financial remedy proceedings. This indemnity had been agreed in the earlier proceedings but not incorporated into the final order. Mostyn…
- Cases
- slip rule
- Experts
- Costs
-
Ali v Dinc & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 3421 January 2022
Lord Justice Green, Lord Justice Birss and Lady Justice Whipple.The claim concerned the transfer of properties between the parties and the dispute that arose as to the terms of that arrangement. At trial, the judge rejected key aspects of each party’s cas…
- Cases
- Appeals
-
LS v PS [2021] EWHC 3508 (Fam)18 January 2022
An application by an intervenor in financial remedy proceedings for disclosure of privileged material from a PFDR was refused. The intervenor, a litigation funder, is seeking to set aside a consent order reached at the PFDR on the basis it was deliberately structured to ensure W could not meet her debt. The court acknowledged that a number of competing policy considerations were engaged, in the process attaching importance to the status of litigation funders. Whilst this application was refused on the facts, Roberts J referred the “absolute bar” (as Munby P has interpreted paragraph 6.2 PD9A) on use of anything said or done at FDR in support of a separate action in civil proceedings to the Family Procedure Rules Committee. In further judicial support for private dispute resolution, Roberts J thought it artificial to draw a distinction between the privilege attaching under paragraph 6.2 PD9A to “in-court” and private FDRs.
- Cases
- FDRs
- Privilege
- Disclosure
- Litigation Funding
- Joinder of Third Parties
-
CW v CH (MFPA 1984 Part III: Interim Applications) [2022] EWFC B110 January 2022
Rec. AllenWife’s application under MFPA 1984 Part III for interim periodical payments and a costs allowance for legal fees. Dispute as to whether W had valid claim, to be addressed at substantive hearing, did not preclude interim award. H could afford to…
- Cases
- Maintenance Pending Suit
- Costs
- Overseas Divorce and the 1984 Act
- Legal Services Payment Orders
-
AB v CD [2022] EWFC 1975 January 2022
HHJ Shelton. Cross applications to vary a global periodical payment order for a child aged 19 who is severely disabled and a spousal maintenance. The global order at the time of this judgment was £1,250pcm (£1,249 child and £1pm spousal).Th…
- Cases
- Global Maintenance Orders
- Child Periodical Payments For Over 18s
- Spousal Maintenance (Quantum)
- Child Maintenance
- Variation Applications
- Needs
-
J & K v L [2021] EWFC B10430 December 2021
HHJ Hess.M’s application for financial provision for children now aged 20 and 18 under Schedule 1.Discussion of the ‘extension conditions’, i.e. when there is an obligation to provide financial support to children once they attain majority, and whether su…
- Cases
- Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications
-
UD v DN (Schedule 1, Children Act 1989; Capital Provision) [2021] EWCA Civ 194721 December 2021
Moylan LJ (judgment), King LJ and Newey LJ.The Court of Appeal allowed a father’s appeal against a settlement of property order in favour of the parties’ two younger children (17 and 12 at the date of the application, 19 and 14 at final hearing). The orde…
- Cases
- Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications
-
UD v DN [2021] EWCA Civ 194721 December 2021
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/UD-v-DN-judgment.pdf
- Cases
- Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications
©2024 Class Legal classlegal.com
