CPS v Richards & Richards [2006] EWCA Civ 849
Judgment date: 27 June 2006
Related
Gohil v Gohil and CPS [2023] EWHC 1567 (Fam)
Judgment date: 27 June 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/1567.html
Mostyn J. The case concerned the inexplicable differences that accompany a draft judgment handed down respectively in the King’s Bench Division, the Family Division, and the Crown Court. H was served by the
Criminal Confiscation, Trusts of Land and Financial Remedies
Background
Convicted criminals may find themselves subject to confiscation applications and orders. These might be accompanied by a trust of land or financial remedy application, by a (perhaps not so) innocent applicant. How do confiscation proceedings work generally? How do they interact with family proceedings? This article gives a general
R v May [2008] UKHL 28
Judgment date: 14 May 2008
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/28.html
Related
Gohil v Gohil and CPS [2023] EWHC 1567 (Fam)
Judgment date: 27 June 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/1567.html
Mostyn J. The case concerned the inexplicable differences that accompany a draft judgment handed down respectively in the King’s Bench Division, the Family Division, and the Crown Court. H was served by the
Criminal Confiscation, Trusts of Land and Financial Remedies
Background
Convicted criminals may find themselves subject to confiscation applications and orders. These might be accompanied by a trust of land or financial remedy application, by a (perhaps not so) innocent applicant. How do confiscation proceedings work generally? How do they interact with family proceedings? This article gives a general
R v May [2008] UKHL 28
Judgment date: 14 May 2008
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/28.html
Latest
Portals: Bringing It All Together
Tips and tricks on using the digital court portals from a member of the stakeholder group for the profession, including how to avoid the double login, when to denote documents as confidential, and how to prompt a response from the court.
FRJ – ‘Well, He (or She) Didn’t Ask!’ – the Impact of Non-Disclosure When the Question Isn’t Asked
Is it a shield to non-disclosure by one party during financial remedy proceedings if the other party could (and perhaps should) have asked? The duty on parties to give full and frank financial disclosure is not merely a private obligation between them; it is a duty to the court.
The Reluctant Pension Credit Member
[2026] 1 FRJ 39. In the case of AP v TP [2025] EWFC 190 (B) a financial remedy order was made by consent, following an FDR, which included a pension sharing order in W’s favour. Difficulties began when W failed to provide the necessary information to permit the pension share to be implemented.