Chekov v Fryer & Fryer [2015] EWHC 1642
Judgment date: 23 June 2015
Related
Armstrong v Armstrong & Anor (Re Remedy) [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch)
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC sitting as a High Court judge. Judgment considering the appropriate remedy for a claimant who had proved his proprietary estoppel claim and his alternative claim for entitlement under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 Act.
Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam)
Williams J. Judgment to determine reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the spouse and son of the deceased following limited provision for them in the Will and mismanagement of the Will by the executrix.
Bad Behaviour and Broken Bonds: A Comparison of Conduct in 1973 and 1975 Act Claims
Introduction
Fifty years ago, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) was enacted in an expansion of the court’s statutory powers for financial provision on death.[[1]] Two years earlier, Parliament had enacted the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to alter the court’s
Related
Armstrong v Armstrong & Anor (Re Remedy) [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch)
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC sitting as a High Court judge. Judgment considering the appropriate remedy for a claimant who had proved his proprietary estoppel claim and his alternative claim for entitlement under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 Act.
Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam)
Williams J. Judgment to determine reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the spouse and son of the deceased following limited provision for them in the Will and mismanagement of the Will by the executrix.
Bad Behaviour and Broken Bonds: A Comparison of Conduct in 1973 and 1975 Act Claims
Introduction
Fifty years ago, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) was enacted in an expansion of the court’s statutory powers for financial provision on death.[[1]] Two years earlier, Parliament had enacted the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to alter the court’s
Latest
An End to Secrecy in Family Courts? Proposed Reforms of Contempt of Court Law That Could Lift the Threats to Sharing Information
It’s common knowledge that people involved in family court proceedings held in private are very restricted in what they can say about what’s happening. The confusing part is when someone might be in contempt of court just for talking or writing about their case, even when anonymised.
The Absent Owner – Varying Beneficial Interests Upon Separation: an Analysis of the Leading Cases
Considering TLATA cases where A and B are joint owners of a family home, the relationship breaks down, and A vacates leaving B in occupation and financially responsible for the property, and then A returns years later seeking their share of the net equity.
When Might an Arbitration Not Be Entirely Private and Confidential?
One of the great virtues of family law arbitration is its ability to provide the parties with confidentiality and privacy for their dispute. Unlike court proceedings, the parties will not face the risk of the hearing taking place in open court with curious members of the public present.