Cases
-
VTY v GDB [2025] EWFC 110 (B)24 April 2025
Recorder Taylor. Final hearing in a financial remedy application which concerned issues of non-disclosure and allegations of asset concealment in different countries. The matter also involved foreign litigation which appeared to undermine the existing proceedings in this jurisdiction. The parties married in 1999 and have two adult children and one aged 16. The family structure was a traditional one with H being the breadwinner and W the homemaker.
- Cases
- Foreign Assets
- Non-Disclosure
- Chattels
- Adverse Inferences
- School Fees
- Fraud
- Costs
- Duxbury Capitalisation
- Debts
- Foreign Judgments
-
GH v IH [2025] EWFC 120 (B)10 April 2025
District Judge Hatvany. Final hearing on enforcement and variation of 2012 financial remedy order. The primary issue to be determined was the enforcement and variation of a joint lives periodical payments order made in 2012.
- Cases
- Periodical Payments
- Variation
- Duxbury Capitalisation
- Needs
- Enforcement
-
BR v BR [2025] EWFC 884 April 2025
Peel J. Final Hearing in Ultra High Net Worth FR case involving valuations of complex business structures.
- Cases
- Sharing Principle
- Company Valuations
- Wells Sharing
- Experts
- Companies
- Costs
- Valuations
-
Galbraith-Marten v De Renee (Extension of Extended Civil Restraint Order) [2025] EWFC 9615 April 2025
Cobb J. Application for an extension of an extended civil restraint order and an application for further financial orders within long-running financial remedy proceedings.
- Cases
- Civil Restraint Orders
-
Kathryn Elizabeth Norman v Michael Ian Norman [2025] EWFC 107 (B)17 April 2025
District Judge Veal. Alleged material non-disclosure, W’s totally without merit application issued in October 2024 after seven rounds of litigation including W’s D50K application, settled by agreement, made when she knew about H’s alleged non-disclosure. W ordered to pay costs on indemnity basis. Warning given regarding the use of websites leading to jigsaw identification and thereby breaching FPR 9.46(3).
- Cases
- Disclosure
- Costs
- Consent Orders
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
-
Duncan Needham v Susan Rosemary Ellis [2024] EWCC 2915 November 2024
HHJ Tindal. An unusual case, involving two appeals arising from longstanding TLATA claims involving the former family home. Mr Needham’s application to vary the consent order which was made in 2017 was refused. He sought ‘permission to apply’ to set aside that refusal, permission being required because of an LCRO. Permission to apply was refused; Mr Needham appealed. This judgment deals with his application to set aside that refusal.
- Cases
- TLATA Claims
- Appeals
- Civil Restraint Orders
-
X v Y [2025] EWHC 727 (Fam)11 March 2025
Trowell J. Wife’s unsuccessful appeal against the rejection of her Barrell application to reopen a final order in a needs case following the husband’s father’s death. Trowell J agreed with the trial judge that the husband’s inheritance prospects were uncertain, and the principle of finality ought to be favoured over re-opening the case.
- Cases
- Barrell Applications
- Appeals Out Of Time
- Appeals
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
-
Simon v Simon [2025] EWFC 897 April 2025
Peel J. Cost judgment from Peel J in ‘highly unusual’ financial remedy proceedings, in which a litigation loan provider successfully applied to be joined and to set aside a consent order which prevented them recovering a loan to W.
- Cases
- Conduct
- Costs
- Joinder of Third Parties
- Efficient Conduct
- Consent Orders
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
-
Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 114 January 2025
MacDonald J. An equal division of the matrimonial assets following a 40-year marriage, including a Wells share in favour of W.
- Cases
- Wells Sharing
- Conduct
- Companies
- Crypto
- Valuations
-
P v B (Permission to appeal an arbitral award: children) [2025] EWFC 69 (B)10 January 2025
Permission to appeal heard by HHJ Robertson involving a challenge to an arbitral determination in a children matter. Held that the powers of an arbitrator to re-open issues in a case are different to those of a judge, as they operate in different spheres, under different rules and to achieve different outcomes.
- Cases
- arbitration
- Appeals
©2024 Class Legal classlegal.com
