8:57 AM

Good morning FRJ followers! You have an exciting day ahead of you as we will be providing live updates from the At A Glance conference today – watch this space #AAG2024

9:33 AM

About to start!

9:35 AM

Mr Justice Peel calling the conference to order

9:37 AM

Thanking Class Legal for the considerable effort that goes into these, the “flagship of conferences”

9:39 AM

Thanks also to the headline sponsors, 3PB and to the indefatigable Sir Nicholas Mostyn for putting together such a superb conference programme

9:43 AM

The programme (and Nikki Saxton’s gold trainers)

9:45 AM

Keynote speech, headlined “Revolution” by Sir Philip Moor

9:47 AM

Recollecting his first case at Edmonton County Court – no skeletons, no schedules, no devices. Ahhhh those were the days

9:52 AM

Discussing historical top rate of tax (98%) and how important it was that PP attracted full tax relief – “a different world”

9:57 AM

Moor J: White v White – a fitting case to start the new century – and the effective introduction to the concept of matrimonial property

10:00 AM

Moor J: fundamental changes in FR have been judge-led. See eg marital agreements and the sea change following Radmacher

10:02 AM

Moor J: the future? Earlier visionaries ahead of the curve – Peter Singer QC, Lord Wilson and Sir Nicholas Mostyn. Where will be in 2065?

10:05 AM

Moor J: the future almost certainly includes the use of AI. Will it include codification of FR outcomes?

10:07 AM

Moor J: sincerely hopes conduct does not make a return to the battlefield not least due to a lack of resources to meet the costs of such cases. As many as 60% of cases involve domestic abuse. All applicants would quality (merits ground) for legal aid and all respondents would be entitled to a QLR

10:08 AM

Moor J: can be assured that the family court and the FR court are in the safest of hands. Fabulous keynote address

10:09 AM

Next up Joe Rainer – QEB’s “rising star”

10:09 AM

10:10 AM

Look at him – so stylish! V, v decent handout too

10:12 AM

JR: how to condense the last year’s cases into a 1 hour talk? The FR Annual Case Law Awards!!

10:13 AM

JR: and the award for the Appellate backfire of the year category? Standish

10:17 AM

JR: Standish has won 3 awards. Audience response suggests no real assistance when advising on mingling and matrimonialisation

10:20 AM

JR: the Radmacher Award for Respecting Authority – BI v EN [2024] EWFC 200. Unvitiated PNA, Cusworth J decided on basis of needs, not sharing

10:21 AM

“Needs” in a £100m case more properly categorised as a “lifestyle award” which enabled her to live at marital standard of living indefinitely

10:22 AM

JR: Spooky Jurisdiction that may or may not exist Award – Thwaite

10:23 AM

The Thwaite-ometer

10:24 AM

10:27 AM

FR: Thwaite case this year – Rotenberg [2024] EWFC 185. Jurisdiction to be used sparingly. Unusual case with exceptional facts.

10:28 AM

JR querying whether the facts of Rotenberg were in fact exceptional

10:30 AM

JR: Hersman v de Verchere [2024] EWHC 995 (Fam). A ‘Thwaite’ case in reality?

10:30 AM

10:33 AM

JR: Re A v B – second appeal in effect. Issue of mortgage borrowing in Schedule 1. F conceded court’s power to order it at first instance then doubled back. hHJ Evan’s-Gordon agreed with him and declined to convert arb award to order. Appeal allowed by Cobb J

10:36 AM

JR: Michael Horton KC’s article on this issue on the FRJ suggests Cobb J is wrong – JR recommends as essential reading

10:37 AM

JR: Polite Judicial Telling Off of the Year Ward – Mrs Justice Knowles in Re X

10:41 AM

JR: Legal Innovation of the Year Award – AT v BT [2023] EWHC 3531 (Fam). Issue whether H’s assets were non-mat. H argued needs only. W argued her compensation claim trumped H’s non-mat arguments – 50/50 outcome by Francis J. Compensation engaged as shield to the other arguments against sharing

10:46 AM

JR: FR case of the Year Award: Runner Up = HO v TL [2023] EWFC 215. Needs based outcome. W ordered to pay £100k costs order due to failure to negotiate reasonably on an open basis

10:51 AM

JR: FR case of the Year. Double header- GA v EL, both judgments. First = Peel J’s case management decision at [2023] EWFC 187: Daniels v Walker and historical business valuation

10:53 AM

JR: Substantive decision in GA v EL at [2023] EWFC 206, Trowel J (almost) on post-separation accrual

10:54 AM

JR: Notable mentions

10:58 AM

Xanthopoulos; DH v RH (No 3) – litigation misconduct: SP v AL and RM v WP on pensions; NA v LA – controversial case management and MA v Roux – the Mr Justice Mostyn Award for Snipe at the Court of Appeal

11:02 AM

Joe Rainer – a superstar. Entertaining, informative and allowing us an extra 5 mins for coffee break. Wonderful

11:04 AM

Peel J – commenting on costs. Going around country now about this – costs will be high on the agenda if failure to negotiate reasonably on open basis – even in smaller money cases

11:32 AM

Our gorgeous sponsors! All out of HCJ stress balls!!

11:33 AM

After a lovely break of bananas and pains au raisin, back to it with Peel and Lieven JJ on Transparency

11:34 AM

11:36 AM

Lieven J: privacy in family proceedings has allowed a myth to grow that they are “secret” courts. Driving force behind transparency is to increase public knowledge and confidence in the family justice system

11:37 AM

Lieven J: rules are clear – reporters can attend and report what they see and hear subject to anonymity

11:38 AM

Lieven J: pilot in 3 courts rolled out to another 16. Gone surprisingly well. Peel J adopting same principles for FRC.

11:41 AM

Lieven J: promoted a good deal of well informed commentary. No breach of anonymity orders. In the FRC, there is an issue about commercial confidentiality and also need to be confident that anonymity will stand. Further, issue of transparency being used as litigation tactic is concerning

11:45 AM

Lieven J: wants to drive home that anonymity rules are not there to protect the professionals. Freedom of expression is fundamental to a democratic system. Equally, judges are not the arbiter of the quality of the journalism – have to step back and take it on the chin

11:46 AM

Lieven J: next steps – working on FRP to embed the pilot principles from 2025. Push to publish more judgments is a work in progress. Resource issue. Anonymising judgments takes time. Even if done by AI, judges have to ensure no identifying features. Encouraging more judges to publish

11:48 AM

Peel J: bringing everyone up to date with transparency in FRC. Moving more gradually towards a more open system. Press are now there – generally constructive, helpful and not there to make trouble so nothing to fear

11:50 AM

Peel J: no other Judge has followed Mostyn J’s approach. The issue has not been properly argued in front of him by parties or press, so reserves comment until then.

11:56 AM

Peel J: now more judgments from lower courts than in previous years – an important part of transparency. Gives a sense of how judges are dealing with FR issues

12:00 PM

Peel J: published Tsvetkov without anonymisation due to poor litigation conduct, parties had never paid tax/completed tax returns and that H had received threats – all of these were matters of public importance. Press not interested in any of that. They were only interested in W’s £1m handbags…

12:01 PM

Now the Duxbury Panel. A stellar line up!!

12:02 PM

12:04 PM

Lewis Marks KC chairing – explaining how the group was put together

12:05 PM

Lewis Marks KC: report is provisional to allow others chance to comment. Invites musings – direct them to Joe Rainer

12:07 PM

Lewis Marks KC: Rhys Taylor has commented on the lack of economic diversity in terms of composition of the group. Push back from Sarah Hoskinson – we are diverse group and all interests represented

12:11 PM

Ooh the panel appear to be v defensive about this. Shout out to Rhys Taylor – the first to comment on the report!

12:11 PM

Lewis Marks KC: don’t really get Duxbury in low money cases.

12:14 PM

Lewis Marks KC: first recommendation is that not just joint lives orders. Second is that fundamental underlying assumptions are sound. Third is incorporating management charges. Further proposal – no longer safe assumption that full state pension will be received so should not be a factor

12:16 PM

Mostyn J: AAG published now for 33 years

12:17 PM

A prize will be given for the first photograph posted which shows all 33 AAG editions. And to tempt you all, the prize won’t be another copy of AAG

12:19 PM

Mostyn J: the tables will include various terms – now neutral whereas Duxbury default is whole life

12:21 PM

Lewis Marks KC: picking on gorgeous Rhys Taylor again – needs to be careful that people are not put off commenting, bearing in mind the provisional nature of the report at this stage is to enable others to comment / make suggestions.

12:25 PM

Mary Waring: real rate of return of 3.75% is not unreasonable but management fees need to be factored in. Costs of professional adviser plus platform charge plus management charge, usually a % of the fund

12:30 PM

Joe Rainer: decision to remove state pension was not that difficult.

12:34 PM

Lewis Marks KC: how to decide the issue of term? Simon Bruce: we could a have a presumption of term – until kids are 16

12:42 PM

Questions… one (which I don’t quite understand) about algorithms and open source data. Sounds clever!

12:46 PM

Q from Sarah Lucy Cooper – what consultation by group on using different tables eg in personal injury? Response is that the rate of return has been debated at length. PI tables provide for different needs

12:47

The AAG “ball” (which is square) is being thrown around

12:49 PM

Q from Helen Brander – will Capitalise be updated? Lewis Marks – it will have to be at some point

12:50 PM

Q from Peel J – have you looked at Fair Shares report for term? Yes we have

12:50 PM

Now LUNCH – hurrah!!

1:54 PM

And we’re back. First up, an impromptu presentation on behalf of the Movers & Shakers campaign. Fabulous accompanying video

1:55 PM

1:56 PM

SIGN THE PARKY CHARTER!!! At [www.moversandshakerspodcast.com](LINK)

1:59 PM

Now Emily Ward and Henrietta Boyle on Small Money Cases

1:59 PM

2:01 PM

What is small money? Views vary. Emily refers to small money fast track proposal arising from the first Farquhar report – judges asked to record asset values. Over 50% or cases involved assets of less than £500k

2:03 PM

HB: proportionality is key – don’t get side tracked by satellite litigation; consider NCDR

2:08 PM

EW: don’t write off arbitration. Consider a stay – whip out NAKC’s judgment in NA v LA. Use accelerated procedure. Engage with necessity test when it comes to experts – marketing appraisals rather than SJE and have cost caps / properly considered LOI if going for SJE

2:10 PM

EW: be brutal with Qaires. Do we really need to know someone gave Auntie Margaret £50 3 years ago

2:11 PM

EW: give thought to (not) running conduct in light of recent case law and whether cheaper to rely on needs in low value case

2:13 PM

HB: LIPs more common in small money cases. Bar Council, FLBA and Resolution have all produced guides to assist LIPs

2:16 PM

HB: watch out for potential difficulties with citing small money cases judgments by DJs and CJs. Cannot rely on them as a result of the 2001 PD. Creates a problem but don’t lose sleep over it

2:19 PM

EW: sounds obvious, but both parties’ needs have to be taken into account – North v North (Thorpe LJ) and A v L (Moor J): “fairness has two faces”

2:20 PM

2:23 PM

EW: developing practice to instruct SJE to do mortgage capacity reports. Avoids cynical reliance on flawed capacity reports

2:29 PM

HB:authorities permit Judges to have regard to housing prices even if specific particulars not provided in the right bracket.

2:31 PM

HB: rented property? Nothing to say everyone has to live in owner-occupied property. If FMH is rented, court can transfer tenancy

2:32 PM

EW: Mesher orders? A lot to be said for grappling with issues now rather than kicking the can down the road

2:38 PM

HB: has reached the “sexy” part of her talk: pensions

2:55 PM

Next up, Tim Bishop KC on Standish

3:02 PM

TBKC: what does Standish say about matrimonialisation? 1. Should be applied narrowly. 2. If there has been some matrimonialisation, make “fair allowance” for the fact some is mat and some is non-mat. 3. Slight reformulation of para 19 in K v L (too nuanced for character count)

3:05 PM

TB: Moylan LJ seems to have moved away from being ‘High Pries’ of discretion. Standish is another big step from discretion to principle

3:08 PM

TB: CoA = 3 pointers towards principles rather than discretion: 1. Look at source; 2. Dismissal of ancillary arguments such as title, autonomous arrangements eg agreement and 3. (Indirectly) make factual findings as to whether may or non-mat

3:11 PM

This is an insightful talk by Tim about the nuances of Standish and where it fits with the other authorities. Fascinating. And he does it all whilst looking like a retired member of a 1980s soft rock band. Fabulous ????

3:13 PM

TB: we now have very clear principles about how to deal with matrimonialised assets. Better to keep with that than reform s25 which would be 10 years of work for the lawyers but 10 years of misery for our clients

3:15 PM

Talk on Law Commission up next, chaired by Sir Nicholas Mostyn

3:15 PM

Do we need to reform s25? (Neat segue there from TBKC’s closing comments)

3:18 PM

NH: preparing scoping report about whether FR provides certain outcomes. Can’t say what is going to be in the report as we don’t know yet. Will be out before year end. It will be a step on path of reform, not reform itself

3:24 PM

NH: looking at other potential models from codification to default models which would require significant departure from existing laws

3:25 PM

NH: looking at other, specific issues – marital agreements, conduct, spousal PP and pensions

3:27 PM

NH: not for Law Com to make recommendations as to approach. It’s a step back from that

3:30 PM

Questions: what was main gripe when consulted public? People want to protect own assets and rely on agreements and concerns that court does not do enough to punish bad behaviour

3:31 PM

Question from Nigel Dyer KC – issues raised by judiciary? Nuptial agreements, term on PP with safeguards

3:33 PM

Q from Henrietta Boyle – will it address costs? We’re not making recommendations but didn’t hear much from public about costs. Judiciary are concerned about costs – that they’re just far too high

3:36 PM

Q from Maria Henry: how will codification impact the more vulnerable. NH turned it would. If vulnerable and looked at s25 it would not tell you how your case is going to be settled

3:37 PM

Sir NM: will you be asked to do full report after this scoping paper? NH: we have new government. 3 choices – go ahead with reform itself, do nothing or ask us to make recommendations for reform

3:41 PM

Sir NM. – you’ve told us as much as you could without actually telling us what’s in the report ????

4:06 PM

Next up…HHJ Hess. Deputy National Lead FR Judge and Lead Judge for London with an FRC update

4:09 PM

HHHEH: DON’T FORGET THE EFFICIENCY STATEMENTS (his capitalisation, not mine. Think he means BUSINESS)

4:11 PM

HHHEH: read N v J on conduct – judges taking it very seriously. Aware of Resolution report and judges will be digesting it – see how that develops. Would lead to radical changes

4:14 PM

HHHEH: the portal. Most consent orders dealt with within a few weeks. Contested portal is more recent. 12,500 contested cases annually nationally – 1/6 in London. Staff over worked and under resourced. Competing with other parts of family justice system with equally acute problems

4:17 PM

HHHEH: 2,000 unread emails in CFC inbox. There has been a dramatic reduction in HMCTS staff. If want a response, don’t email court, issue a general application on the portal. Will get quicker response

4:19 PM

HHHEH: upload ALL documents and in the right place – HMCTS guidance. If don’t have it, email him and he will send you a copy.

4:20 PM

HHHEH: most judges don’t mind direct emails with case summaries etc but don’t send to generic email address and remember to upload it on the portal too

4:22 PM

HHHEH: new HCJ level allocation procedure since 21.05.24. By application on portal. HHHEH will deal and liaise with Peel J. It’s on FRJ website

4:25 PM

HHHEH: promotion of NCDR. All must read new pre-action protocol annexed to PD9A. Reinforces existing policy to attempt NCDR before issuing. Extends range of forms of NCDR. Court can suspend proceedings to enable it on own motion

4:27 PM

HHHEH: if NCDR not attempted, respondent can apply for court to direct an adjournment for the parties to attempt NCDR. He has made such orders

4:29 PM

HHHEH: PAG2 should be first port of call in a pensions case. Think before FDA about the Qs you want the PODE to answer. Perhaps only 1 Q – what PSO required to equalise income at state retirement age?

4:31 PM

HHHEH: part III leave apps will now be inter partes, not ex parte

4:33 PM

Now the Potanin panel!!

4:36 PM

Amber Sheridan chairing in a wonderfully co-ordinated outfit (Aspiga?) even down to her shoes. Currently introducing the fabulous panel but Saxton and I are distracted by Amber’s beautiful velvet suit

4:37 PM

AS: Part III cases are rare

4:39 PM

Prof Becky Bailey Harris – history lesson on development of Part III apps, to protect women when divorcing overseas

4:41 PM

BBH: law commission wanted to balance desire for law reform with the inherent risks – forum shopping, different legal systems er.

4:42 PM

BBH: the leave filter was brought in to protect the respondent from unmeritorious apps

4:44 PM

Eleanor Harris: going through the case from first application stage

4:49 PM

Peter Mitchell KC looking wonderful: you never know when open a brief that going to end up in Supreme Court

4:50 PM

Nigel Dyer KC: tallied up 19 judges involved in Agbaje

4:54 PM

PMKC: of assets of £705k, W received £106k and H received £599k

4:56 PM

Coleridge J increased W’s award in Agbaje to 39% of the assets

4:58 PM

NDKC & Tim Scott KC – Supreme Court got it right.Agbaje was in the liberal court of that age – a reforming court and 5 of the justices were on panel for Radmacher

5:00 PM

NDKC: legislative purpose of part III is to alleviate financial hardship

5:04 PM

Tim Scott KC: absolutely nothing exceptional about Agbaje

5:05 PM

BBH: facts of Potanin – “striking”. No connection between W and England during marriage

5:07 PM

BBH: 43 hearings in Potanin.

5:10 PM

Rebecca Carew Pole KC – aka “Becky the Younger”. Her thunder stolen by HHJ Hess about inter parties leave apps

5:12 PM

RCPKC: no longer for respondent to produce knock out blow

5:16 PM

These panels are brilliant. We get to hear about the ‘behind the scenes’ processes which really bring the case alive

5:19 PM

Healthy debate between NDKC and RCPKC about Lord Briggs’ minority judgment. May spill over soon. Fingers being pointed and everything

5:21 PM

NDKC responding. Taking his life in his hands if you ask me. I know who my money is on

5:23 PM

PMKC believes Part III is for W’s like Potanina – it’s about narrowing the huge disparity created by the outcome in the overseas country. RCPKC does not agree. Peter is a brave man

5:26 PM

BBH: 2 practical tips: (1) read s12. This process not available in non-proceedings divorces (ie pure Talaqs) and (2) lengthy dissenting judgments are a waste of resources. Don’t bother reading them

5:28 PM

TSKC top tip – in a jurisdiction dispute, factor in costs of a Part III in your costs l/benefit analysis

5:29 PM

Peel J closing a FABULOUS conference. Put 16.10.25 in your diaries for next year’s AAG conf. See you next year loves.