
Sophia Gonella
Published: 10/02/2023 23:24
Sophia Gonella joined Queen Elizabeth Building as a Pupil in September 2022. Prior to joining QEB, Sophia taught Law at Durham University, specialising in Trusts and Equity, Land Law and Family Property..
Published: 10/02/2023 23:24
Sophia Gonella joined Queen Elizabeth Building as a Pupil in September 2022. Prior to joining QEB, Sophia taught Law at Durham University, specialising in Trusts and Equity, Land Law and Family Property..
What happens if the Child Maintenance Service has determined that a non-resident parent is required to pay child maintenance to the parent-with-care, but payments are also being made towards the mortgage secured on the property in which PWC still lives with the qualifying child/children? Does it matter if the property is jointly owned by NRP and PWC? Will those mortgage payments reduce the amount of child maintenance?
!29/11/2024 06:00
As Mostyn J observed in Clarke v Clarke [2023] 2 FLR 1 at [36], Peel J’s oft-quoted summary of the law in WC v HC (Financial Remedies Agreements) (Rev 1) [2022] 2 FLR 1110 at [21] is an ‘impeccable synopsis of the jurisprudence applicable in financial remedy cases [which] has become justly famous’. Somewhat more colloquially, Peel J has himself said (with a smile) that he has heard his summary described as ‘the Noddy Guide’ to financial remedies.
!01/04/2025 10:20
The main focus in cases under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 is often on how to meet the housing needs of a child; understandably so, as it is usually the largest cost. It can also be the starting point for settlement as the type of property and loca…
!06/07/2022 07:07
HHJ Booth (now retired), sitting as a High Court judge, considered whether the duty of full and frank disclosure ends at the arbitration hearing, the judgment, and also whether the arbitral award should be treated as a ‘judgment’. Held: the duty of full and frank disclosure continued until the final disposition of the claims by the court.
Recorder Nicholas Allen KC. Judgment following four-day final hearing, in which the parties agreed that it was a sharing case and that the net capital assets should be divided equally. The dispute centred around issues of computation, including tax issues and add-back vs Wells sharing.
message