Cases
-
ND v LD (Financial Remedy: Needs) [2022] EWFC B15
DDJ Arshad.Rare reported DDJ decision in modest asset case. Discusses special measures (including some rather unusual) taken before and during hearing in light of H’s mental health and (notwithstanding his capacity) suicidal ideation. Both parties’ housin…
- Cases
- Special Measures in Conduct of Hearing
- Pensions on Divorce
- Needs
!10/03/2022 15:30
-
MG v GM [2022] EWFC 8
MPS and LSPO application by W in a case described by Peel J as 'a battle royale' ([3]). Each party denied holding liquid assets, and asserted the other had access to significant wealth. Peel J decided that in these circumstances he must be circumspect. It…
- Cases
- Maintenance Pending Suit
- Interim Relief
- Legal Services Payment Orders
!01/03/2022 15:04
-
Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs [2022] EWFC 6 (21 February 2022)
Mostyn J.Ultra high net worth couple. This judgment relates to W’s application for interim maintenance -- there was significant disparity (£99,000 per month) between the parties’ respective positions on quantum. Moylan LJ’s comments in Rattan v Kuwad [202…
- Cases
- Agreements
- Interim Relief
- Maintenance Pending Suit
!21/02/2022 16:39
-
P v Q (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC B9 (10 February 2022)
HHJ Hess. Financial remedy proceedings in which parties’ respective parents had provided them with funds to enhance their lifestyle, which court held to be soft loans rather than gifts. Discussion of importance of determining whether hard/soft; gives some…
- Cases
- Add-Backs
- Companies
!10/02/2022 16:49
-
Bailey v Bailey (Committal) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 5 (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
- International Enforcement
- Admissibility of Civil Judgments in Other Proceedings
- Committal Applications and Judgment Summonses
!04/02/2022 16:36
-
Baker v Baker [2022] EWFC 15
Mostyn J.Application by W for maintenance pending suit following Rattan v Kuwad [2021] EWCA Civ 1. Held, court entitled to make assumptions about H’s ability to pay in face of ‘lamentable’ disclosure. Declines to allow W to roll up part of her income in c…
- Cases
- Maintenance Pending Suit
- Conduct
- Disclosure
!04/02/2022 15:00
-
Goddard-Watts v Goddard Watts [2022] EWHC 711 (Fam)
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
- Costs
- Disclosure
- Procedure on Non-Disclosure
!03/02/2022 09:00
-
Loggie v Loggie [2022] EWFC 2
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
- Costs
- slip rule
- Experts
!27/01/2022 16:44
-
Ali v Dinc & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 34
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
!21/01/2022 09:00
-
LS v PS [2021] EWHC 3508 (Fam)
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
- Disclosure
- FDRs
- Litigation Funding
- Joinder of Third Parties
- Privilege
!18/01/2022 14:32
