GR v AR [2025] EWFC 143 (B)10 March 2025

HHJ Hess (sitting as a deputy High Court judge). Application of the sharing principle and dispute over matrimonial vs non matrimonial property in HNW financial remedy case.

• Cases

• Sharing Principle
• Matrimonial and Non-Matrimonial Property
• Shares
• High Net Worth
• Family Home

• Abigail Clements-Bewley

Reflecting Domestic Abuse in Financial Proceedings: a Comparative Analysis of English and Australian Approaches Since the Family Law Amendment (No 2) Act 2024

A significant shift in the treatment of domestic abuse within financial remedy proceedings will shortly take effect in Australia. Following Royal Assent on 10 December 2024, the Family Law Amendment (No 2) Act 2024 will introduce reforms that require courts to account for the impact of family violence on property and spousal maintenance outcomes. The property reform schedule within the legislation will apply to proceedings filed on or after 11 June 2025.

• Blog

• Domestic Abuse
• International Comparison

• Monique Simone Fremder

!16/06/2025 08:30

Tickle v The Father & Ors [2025] EWFC 1609 June 2025

Henke J. Procedural judgment in children proceedings reaffirming legal protections for journalistic sources and highlighting the limits of transparency in the family courts.

• Cases

• Transparency
• Publicity and Confidentiality

• Monique Simone Fremder

Remediable Service Statements – What to Expect for ‘Immediate Choice’ Members

All of the public sector pension schemes are now further along the process of allowing for the McCloud judgment (public sector pensions remedy) for affected members (typically those with some pensionable service in the remedy period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022). Some of the public sector pension schemes have now commenced issuing Remediable Service Statements to affected members.

• Blog

• Pensions

• Denise Andryszewska

!12/06/2025 09:00

THR v WAT [2025] EWHC 1125 (Fam)17 March 2025

HHJ Hess navigated his way through an Xydhias puzzle. Parties informed the judge they were Xydhias-bound but then argued over (i) a £2m asset, (ii) costs, (iii) an interest provision, and (iv) security. The court’s conclusions, in a nutshell, were that if it had not been raised at the time or in the written agreement, then the court would favour the written agreement.

• Cases

• Agreements
• Child Periodical Payments
• Child Maintenance
• Xydhias

• Elizabeth Bowden