CA v DR (Schedule 1 Children Act 1989: Pension Claim) [2021] EWFC 21
Judgment date: 24 February 2021
Related
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v LR & Anor [2025] EWFC 271 (B)
DJ Guirguis. Exercising the power contained in s 32 of the Child Support Act 1991, the court set aside a transfer of property and injuncted the respondents from further dispositions to defeat child maintenance claims.
Re: H (A Child) (Appeal: Child Maintenance)
Henke J. A failed appeal by the father against the extension of the duration of a child maintenance order beyond the age of eighteen years.
OS v DT [2025] EWFC 156
HHJ Hess. Financial remedies final hearing heard by HHJ Hess involving total assets over £9m, and disputes concerning non-matrimonial property including post-separation income, and child periodical payments where the parties had equal shared care of the children.
Read the journal


Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 2 | Summer
Related
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v LR & Anor [2025] EWFC 271 (B)
DJ Guirguis. Exercising the power contained in s 32 of the Child Support Act 1991, the court set aside a transfer of property and injuncted the respondents from further dispositions to defeat child maintenance claims.
Re: H (A Child) (Appeal: Child Maintenance)
Henke J. A failed appeal by the father against the extension of the duration of a child maintenance order beyond the age of eighteen years.
OS v DT [2025] EWFC 156
HHJ Hess. Financial remedies final hearing heard by HHJ Hess involving total assets over £9m, and disputes concerning non-matrimonial property including post-separation income, and child periodical payments where the parties had equal shared care of the children.
Latest

Open Justice in the Modern Age
A guest lecture delivered on Tuesday, 7 October 2025, at 6pm, at George Town, Grand Cayman.

Applied Theatre and the Advocacy Gap in Financial Remedies
Closing the gap between legal recognition and judicial persuasion.

War (of the Roses) – What Is It Good For?
The release of a new film has sparked a wave of commentary from the press and family lawyers alike. It shows that bloody mindedness and divorce are a timeless combination. Contains spoilers!