Chair’s Column (Summer 2026)

It is immensely comforting and reassuring to me in my role as Chair of the FRJ Editorial Board that, month after month, we receive significant numbers of offers of excellent articles to publish on a compelling range of topics relevant to financial remedies practitioners. In this issue we have a really good range of such articles. In commending this issue, I highlight just a few of them.

The problem of costs in the Financial Remedies Court

For as long as I can recall, everybody has objectively agreed that parties involved in cases in the Financial Remedies Court have spent far too much on legal costs. Many judges in very high places have called for something to be done to ameliorate this problem and some steps have been taken. In this issue, we publish some serious reflections on this by Philip Tait in ‘Costs in Needs Cases: Persistent Reluctance’, in which he comments that the actions taken (e.g. the revision to FPR PD 28A, para 4.4) and judicial pronouncements on what should happen (e.g. Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52: ‘The revised para 4.4 of FPR PD28A is extremely important. It requires the parties to negotiate openly in a reasonable way … It is important that I enunciate this principle loud and clear: if, once the financial landscape is clear, you do not openly negotiate reasonably, then you will likely suffer a penalty in costs. This applies whether the case is big or small, or whether it is being decided by reference to needs or sharing’) have not made much difference on the ground. He suggests that ‘it continues to be relatively rare for costs orders to be made against the recipient of needs based awards in decisions below High Court Judge level’. If Philip Tait is correct about this, and I suspect he is, then plainly more thought will need to be given by decision-makers as to what more can be done to improve the situation. It is important that the FRJ continues to contribute to this debate and to welcome and publish constructive suggestions as to what further steps might be taken.

Cohabitation law reform

I would guess that a majority of financial remedies lawyers agree that the non-availability of re-distributional financial remedies for separating cohabitants is an injustice which needs to be corrected. I recall becoming acutely aware of the potential injustice when the Court of Appeal decision of Burns v Burns [1984] 1 All ER 244 was published just before my university law final examinations and, after the Law Commission produced its persuasive report on the subject in 2007, I recall publishing a paper on this subject identifying the difference in available rights between separating cohabitants in England in contrast to those in Scotland. In the nearly 20 years since, whilst governments have come and gone, no progress has yet been made in England. The current government’s public commitments on the subject are yet to be converted into legislative action. In this issue, we publish ‘Cohabitation Law Reform – Perspectives North and South of the Anglo-Scottish Border’ by Elizabeth Darlington, Graeme Fraser and Susannah Mountain, which both anticipates and encourages legislative reform on this subject in England in the near future and observes that Scotland may indeed now be ready to extend further the rights already available to separating cohabitants. If the authors’ predictions about imminent legislative reform in England prove to be correct, this issue is likely to become a very lively topic in the months ahead, of course of great interest to FRJ readers.

Marinos v Munro revived

It perhaps should be regarded as an indicator of good health that different members of the FRJ Editorial Board have different views on topical legal issues relevant to financial remedies practitioners, such as the proper interpretation of Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, s 5(2)(d). In this issue, we publish ‘The Great Marinos/Munro Debate in Divorce – Beheaded or Survived?’ by Michael Allum and Max Turnell which explains with impressive clarity how this debate, which might have disappeared with the arrival of legislative changes introduced as a consequence of Brexit, has re-surfaced in recent case law. To all those interested in this area of the law, we still await a definitive answer from the highest courts to put this long-standing debate finally to bed!

Matthew Brunsdon-Tully

I finish with a commendation of Lily Mottehedan’s ‘In Memory of Matthew Brunsdon-Tully 3.6.1984 – 31.3.2026’. I imagine all of us who knew him (myself, from a good number of court hearings and even more legal events) will share the affectionate feeling for his intelligence and gregarious good humour captured in this memoir and the pain and sadness at his very premature passing.