H v H [2007] EWHC 459 (Fam), [2007] 2 FLR 548
Judgment date: 04 April 2007
Related
BI v EN [2024] EWFC 200 (Fam)
Judgment date: 29 July 2024
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2024/200
Decision of Cusworth J concluding financial remedy proceedings between W and H. The principal issue concerned the extent to which the outcome of W’s application for financial remedies should be impacted by the ‘Contrat de Mariage’
AT v BT [2023] EWHC 3531 (Fam)
Judgment date: 06 November 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2023/3531
Francis J. A final hearing in H’s financial remedy application.
W sought a lump sum of £9.145m on the basis of sharing and compensation. H asserted this was a needs case due to the
H v W [2023] EWFC 120
Judgment date: 14 July 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2023/120.html
HHJ Reardon KC. This case concerns cross-applications regarding a final financial remedy order made in May 2021 (the 2021 order) by Recorder Anderson. This included an application by H for a further lump sum
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring
Related
BI v EN [2024] EWFC 200 (Fam)
Judgment date: 29 July 2024
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2024/200
Decision of Cusworth J concluding financial remedy proceedings between W and H. The principal issue concerned the extent to which the outcome of W’s application for financial remedies should be impacted by the ‘Contrat de Mariage’
AT v BT [2023] EWHC 3531 (Fam)
Judgment date: 06 November 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2023/3531
Francis J. A final hearing in H’s financial remedy application.
W sought a lump sum of £9.145m on the basis of sharing and compensation. H asserted this was a needs case due to the
H v W [2023] EWFC 120
Judgment date: 14 July 2023
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2023/120.html
HHJ Reardon KC. This case concerns cross-applications regarding a final financial remedy order made in May 2021 (the 2021 order) by Recorder Anderson. This included an application by H for a further lump sum
Latest
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.
Housing Particulars: Mind The Gap
What can the court do when there's a significant gap between the bottom of the applicant’s range and the top of the respondent’s range? Can the court take up the invitation made by counsel to ‘conduct its own research on Rightmove if it wishes’?