Nicholas Allen KC
Published: 13/01/2022 10:53
Barrister and Joint Head of Chambers at 29 Bedford Row (London). Door Tenant at St. Ives (Birmingham). IFLA arbitrator and PFDR/ENE tribunal. Appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2018, a Deputy High Court Judge in 2021, and a Recorder of the Family Court in 2016. Bencher of the Middle Temple. Contributing Editor to The Family Court Practice and editor of the family law chapters of Foskett on Compromise. Regular lecturer including to the Judicial College. Chair of the UK Association of LGBTQ+ Judges.
Wells Sharing: Commonplace or a Matter of Last Resort?
The importance of the ‘clean break’ has been reemphasised in recent years with greater emphasis being placed on MCA 1973 s 25A (and s 28(1A)), particularly in the judgments of Mostyn J.
- Blog
- Wells Sharing
- Clean Breaks and Term Maintenance
!08/11/2024 17:00
No Special Favours: Litigants in Person and the Financial Remedies Court
Although not impacted in the same way as private law children proceedings by the restrictions on access to justice brought about the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which came into force on 1 April 2013, there are many parties who represent themselves in financial remedy proceedings, sometimes due to cost and sometimes by choice.
- Blog
- Litigants in Person
!23/10/2024 10:35
Ma v Roux: Can You Strike Out a Set Aside Application?
It was settled in Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14 that the court cannot strike-out/give summary judgment on a legally recognisable application for a financial remedy order as an applicant is entitled to have such an application heard on its merits. But is that the end of the matter? In Ma v Roux [2024] EWHC 1917 (Fam) Francis J heard an appeal from HHJ Reardon.
- Blog
- Striking Out Applications
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
!25/09/2024 17:32
A v M (No. 2) – Construing a Court Order After the Unforeseen Occurs
How should provisions of a court order that are in dispute be construed?
- Blog
- Consent Orders
!12/09/2024 08:00
NCDR Redux: The Impact of October’s CPR Amendments
One of the changes to the FPR 2010 made when the material parts of the Family Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2023 came into force on 29 April 2024 was an amendment to r 28.3(7) which by the insertion of a new (aa)(ii) makes ‘any failure by a party, without good reason, to attend non-court dispute resolution’ a basis to depart from the general starting point that there should be no order as to costs.
- Blog
- NCDR
!16/08/2024 08:00
HJB v WPB: Beware the Preliminary Issue
It is entirely appropriate for the factual question of either the existence of an agreement (if in dispute), or whether one party ought to be entitled to resile therefrom on the so-called Edgar grounds or otherwise, to be heard as a preliminary issue. However, beware any suggestion that the court should embark on a consideration of the status of any such agreement as a preliminary issue, with no consideration of the surrounding circumstances or s 25 factors.
- Blog
- Pre-Nuptial Agreements
!16/08/2024 07:00
What Is a ‘Predicament of Real Need’?
In Radmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino [2010] 2 FLR 1900 at [81] Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said that of the three strands identified in White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and Miller/McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186 it was needs and compensation which could most readily render it unfair to hold the parties to an ante-nuptial agreement. But what is the meaning of ‘predicament of real need’?
- Blog
- Pre-Nuptial Agreements
- Needs
!16/07/2024 14:38
Impact of Conduct on Needs
In exercising its powers in financial remedy proceedings, the court is required to have regard to the ‘conduct of each of the parties if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it’: s 25(2)(g) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
- Journal
- Conduct
- Needs
!01/07/2024 07:00
AT v BT: The Return of Compensation
In AT v BT [2023] EWHC 3531 Francis J considered what he described (at [4]) as ‘the proper approach of the court to the sharing principle and to the principle of compensation’ given that ‘the husband maintains that this is a pure needs case and the wife asserts that this is a full sharing case’. This led H to offer a lump sum of £3.545m and W to seek a lump sum of £9.145m (with W to retain a property with an agreed value of £195,000 (£190,000 net of notional costs of sale)).
- Blog
- Compensation
- Assets
- Needs
!20/06/2024 19:41
‘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
©2023 Class Legal classlegal.com
