Mainwaring v Bailey [2024] EWHC 2614 (Fam)16 October 2024

Henke J ordered the husband to pay the wife’s costs assessed on a standard basis following his ‘hopeless appeal’. In response to the husband’s plea that he should be treated as a litigant-in-person and he did not understand the Family Procedure Rules, Henke J was emphatic that litigants in person are expected to comply with the procedural rules as much as represented parties.

• Cases

• Costs
• Appeals

• Jasmine Knapman

IN v CH [2024] EWFC 2338 July 2024

Mr Stephen Trowell KC. The husband and wife made competing applications for an order for sale in respect of the matrimonial home and a yacht. The court found that the wife did not have a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home and ordered the property to be sold. The wife’s application to sell the yacht was unsuccessful as it belonged to a company, AB, who had not been joined to the proceedings.

• Cases

• Sale of Property
• Interim Relief
• Joinder of Third Parties
• Trusts

• Jasmine Knapman

Mainwaring v Bailey [2024] EWHC 2296 (Fam)28 August 2024

Henke J. The husband unsuccessfully appealed against an order leaving him with c.35% of the assets in a ‘small money’ case. Ms Justice Henke emphasised the breadth of the trial judge’s discretion and affirmed that fairness does not always mean equality.

• Cases

• Sharing Principle
• Housing Need
• Loans
• Appeals
• Debts
• Needs

• Jasmine Knapman

A v M (No 2) [2024] EWFC 2141 August 2024

Sir Jonathan Cohen. Dispute over enforcement of a FR order giving W a share of the proceeds the husband received from a private equity fund where part of the investments in that fund were carried into a continuation fund.

• Cases

• Construction Of A Final Order
• Continuation Funds
• Enforcement
• Private Equity Funds

• Jasmine Knapman

Till Debt Do Us Part: Bankruptcy and Financial Remedies

Financial remedies practitioners are well-accustomed to advising parties in straitened financial circumstances. Often the central question is how to stretch the available resources to ensure both parties have a roof over their heads. However, when one or both parties find themselves in serious financial difficulty, a less familiar issue may arise: the interplay between the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

• Blog

• Bankruptcy

• Jasmine Knapman
• Rosie Vorri

!01/10/2024 08:00