Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61
Judgment date: 14 October 2015
Related
Kroupeeva v Kroupeev [2026] EWFC 85
James Ewins KC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge). Final hearing in ultra-high net worth case with allegations of non-disclosure and with complex trust and corporate structures.
KMR v AER [2026] EWFC 10 (B)
DDJ Benjamin Rose. Judgment considering high-value assets, non-disclosure, jurisdictional questions, issues surrounding the validity of a nuptial settlement and general conduct of proceedings.
K v K [2026] EWFC 83 (B)
DJ Parker’s decision emphasises the importance of the court transcript where there is a dispute as to what was said by the judge. Ultimately H’s application to set aside a final order by consent failed because H was wrong; the FDR judge had not given him a 28-day cooling off period.
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring
Related
Kroupeeva v Kroupeev [2026] EWFC 85
James Ewins KC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge). Final hearing in ultra-high net worth case with allegations of non-disclosure and with complex trust and corporate structures.
KMR v AER [2026] EWFC 10 (B)
DDJ Benjamin Rose. Judgment considering high-value assets, non-disclosure, jurisdictional questions, issues surrounding the validity of a nuptial settlement and general conduct of proceedings.
K v K [2026] EWFC 83 (B)
DJ Parker’s decision emphasises the importance of the court transcript where there is a dispute as to what was said by the judge. Ultimately H’s application to set aside a final order by consent failed because H was wrong; the FDR judge had not given him a 28-day cooling off period.
Latest
How are family lawyers really approaching legal research and technology?
Class Legal is reviewing its products, resources, and customer behaviour to better understand what practitioners need.
Interview with Richard Sax
On 11 February 2026 there was a celebratory lunch with the past recipients of Resolution’s John Cornwell Lifetime Achievement Award, organised by David Emmerson, who here interviews Richard Sax.
The Curious Case of CA 1989 Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3)
Paragraph 1 of CA 1989 Schedule 1 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief against parents’. Paragraph 2 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief for persons over eighteen’. As recent cases have demonstrated this structure causes complications.