Collardeau v Fuchs [2025] EWFC 307
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/307
Poole J
Related
F v EE (Enforcement under Sch 1 CA : s423 Insolvency Act 1986) [2026] EWFC 249 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/249
The Myth of a General Equitable Jurisdiction to Reconsider Financial Remedy Orders
If the Thwaite jurisdiction exists, the doctrine should only need to be invoked in exceptionally rare cases. Ordinarily, careful drafting of a non-variable property adjustment order should provide for future contingencies, however remote or unlikely.
JC v MC [2026] EWFC 145
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/145
Related
F v EE (Enforcement under Sch 1 CA : s423 Insolvency Act 1986) [2026] EWFC 249 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/249
The Myth of a General Equitable Jurisdiction to Reconsider Financial Remedy Orders
If the Thwaite jurisdiction exists, the doctrine should only need to be invoked in exceptionally rare cases. Ordinarily, careful drafting of a non-variable property adjustment order should provide for future contingencies, however remote or unlikely.
JC v MC [2026] EWFC 145
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/145
Latest
The Astonishing Fate of Scott v Scott (1911-1913)
Secrecy in family cases from the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes (1858) to the Financial Remedies Court (2024)
The Consequences of Late Service of an N260 for Summary Assessment of Costs: Prejudice and Proportionality
The requirement to serve a statement of costs (Form N260) for the purposes of summary assessment of costs is set out in CPR PD 44 para 9.5. But what are the consequences of a breach of the rule to serve the statement of costs not less than 24 hours before the start of the hearing?
Is It Time for the Conclusions in Waggott to Be Reconsidered?
There is arguably a far greater understanding now than there was even as recently as 2018 of domestic abuse and the wide-reaching and long-lasting impact that it can have. Does this mean it is time for the Court of Appeal to reconsider the conclusions it reached in Waggott?