Andrew Day
Published: 03/01/2024 12:49
Andrew Day is a barrister, IFLA financial scheme arbitrator, Resolution-trained family mediator and private FDR evaluator. He practises from St Ives Chambers, Birmingham, and 29 Bedford Row, London, where he is an associate member. He also sits as a Recorder. He is a member of the Bar Council’s ADR Panel and co-author of its guidance on early neutral evaluation.
When It’s Good, It’s Very Good… The ES2, Aged Three; a Pedant’s Perspective
On 11 January 2025, the pro forma schedule of assets known to all as the ES2 turned three years old. Just like the little girl (with the little curl, right in the middle of her forehead) of nursery rhyme fame, who one imagines may be of a similar age, when it’s good, it’s very good, and when it’s bad, it’s horrid.
- Blog
- Asset Schedules
!11/04/2025 07:00
ST v AR: The Origin of Assets and the Assessment of Needs
As Mostyn J observed in Clarke v Clarke [2023] 2 FLR 1 at [36], Peel J’s oft-quoted summary of the law in WC v HC (Financial Remedies Agreements) (Rev 1) [2022] 2 FLR 1110 at [21] is an ‘impeccable synopsis of the jurisprudence applicable in financial remedy cases [which] has become justly famous’. Somewhat more colloquially, Peel J has himself said (with a smile) that he has heard his summary described as ‘the Noddy Guide’ to financial remedies.
- Blog
- Assets
- Needs
!01/04/2025 10:20
They Think It’s All Over… It Is Not! Express Declarations, Subsequent Agreements and the Decision in Re Cynberg
In Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, at [49], Baroness Hale said that ‘[n]o-one now doubts that … an express declaration [of trust] is conclusive unless varied by subsequent agreement or affected by proprietary estoppel’. In Re Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch), James Pickering KC dismissed the appeal of two trustees in bankruptcy.
- Blog
- Stack
- Declarations of Trust
- Estoppel
- Trusts
!09/09/2024 14:54
Cohabitation and Separation: When Does the Clock Start and Stop?
Since the two seminal decisions of the House of Lords in White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186, the question of when parties commenced cohabitation has assumed an important significance, alongside the question of when they separated.
- Blog
- Cohabitation
!22/08/2024 08:00
‘Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns’ – Can a Change in the Law Be a Barder Event?
Can a change in domestic law, resulting from judicial tergiversation, ever satisfy the Barder test? The answer to this question depends, in part, on how widely or narrowly the Barder test is interpreted.
- Blog
- Barder Applications
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
!04/06/2024 09:00
D(R) Day: Today’s Changes to FPR Parts 3 and 28
FPR Part 3 has historically been underused. This may change as important revisions to both FPR Part 3 and Part 28 come into effect, on 29 April 2024, when the material parts of the Family Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2023 (SI 2023/1324) come into force.
- Blog
- Family Procedure Rules
- NCDR
!29/04/2024 07:00
Conduct and Its Consequences: Goddard-Watts and TK v LK
In ‘Is It Time to Consign the “Gasp” Factor to the History Books?’, Olivia Piercy and Anita Mehta considered whether three decisions might herald a significant change in the courts’ approach to domestic abuse, including economic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour, as ‘conduct’ that it would be ‘inequitable to disregard’. If there is a nascent consensus that it is time for a change in approach, that view may not be universally held.
- Blog
- Conduct
!15/04/2024 21:08
Financial Dispute Revolution? The Family Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2023
There was a time when an unwritten rule seemed to provide that a marriage could only be described as long once the parties had celebrated their china anniversary and entered a third decade together, but times change, and so eventually do some rules.
- Journal
- Family Procedure Rules
!26/01/2024 08:00
Fresh Carrot, Bigger Stick: Forthcoming Rule Changes and the ‘Encouragement’ of NCDR
FPR Part 3 has historically been underused. This is strange given that FPR 1.4 provides that the court ‘must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases’ and FPR 1.4(2)(f) states that active case management includes ‘encouraging the parties to use a non-court dispute resolution’, or ‘NCDR’, ‘procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure.’
- Blog
- Blog
- Out of Court Dispute Resolution Options
- NCDR
!03/01/2024 13:22
©2024 Class Legal classlegal.com
