Lucy Taylor (Coram Chambers)
Published: 10/02/2025 05:59
Lucy Taylor recently joined Coram Chambers as a junior tenant and welcomes instructions in all areas of family law.
-
JQ v IQ [2025] EWFC 192 (B)23 June 2025
HHJ Vincent. A Pakistani divorce was deemed to be valid in the UK on public policy grounds and permission was granted for the wife to bring financial remedies proceedings in this jurisdiction.This hearing concerned the wife’s application under s 13…
- Cases
- Jurisdiction
- Divorce Orders
- Overseas Divorce and the 1984 Act
- International Enforcement
-
Dervis v Deniz [2025] EWHC 90211 April 2025
Edwin Johnson J. TLATA judgment setting out the circumstances in which a new claim can be pursued on appeal, the law regarding the ‘release’ of one’s beneficial interest in property to another joint tenant, and the differences between re…
- Cases
- TLATA Claims
- Property
-
Sandeep Kumar Chugh v Latika Chugh [2025] EWFC 424 March 2025
Nicholas Allen KC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge). Final hearing concerning H’s application for recognition of divorce proceedings brought by H in India, and H’s challenge to the jurisdictional basis of divorce proceedings brought in the UK by W.
- Cases
- Family Law Act 1986
- Jurisdiction
- Stay Pending Resolution of Overseas Proceedings
- Stay of Proceedings
- Non-Recognition of Overseas Divorce
- International Enforcement
- Recognition of Indian Divorce
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
-
CH v TH [2024] EWFC 135 (B)26 April 2024
HHJ Willans. Final hearing in FR proceedings involving parties with widely conflicting views as to the resources available. The outcome was a modest departure from equality with a 53% split in W’s favour.
- Cases
- Procedure
- Litigation Misconduct
- Evidential Issues
- Needs
- Property Particulars
-
P v Q, R and S [2024] EWFC 164 (B)19 June 2024
District Judge Veal. Final hearing concerning W’s claim in financial remedy proceedings for a beneficial interest in two properties which had been bought and renovated by H and the intervenors, H’s parents. District Judge Veal found that W had been dishonest in pursuing her claims and had presented her case in a ‘nebulous way’ which must have felt ‘like a real slap in the face’ for the intervenors.
- Cases
- TOLATA Claims
- Anonymity and Transparency
- Joinder of Third Parties
- Trusts
©2024 Class Legal classlegal.com
