H v W [2013] EWHC 4105 (Fam)
Judgment date: 20 December 2013
Related
Fiscal Event Update
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growth-plan-2022-documents
On 23 September 2022 Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, held a fiscal event where he announced his new Growth Plan for the UK.[[1]] The Institute of Fiscal Studies have said the measures announced represent the biggest tax cut of any budget
B v B [2014] EWHC 4545 (Fam)
Judgment date: 28 November 2014
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/4545.html
R v K [2020] EWHC 841
Judgment date: 27 February 2020
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/841.html
Related
Fiscal Event Update
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growth-plan-2022-documents
On 23 September 2022 Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, held a fiscal event where he announced his new Growth Plan for the UK.[[1]] The Institute of Fiscal Studies have said the measures announced represent the biggest tax cut of any budget
B v B [2014] EWHC 4545 (Fam)
Judgment date: 28 November 2014
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/4545.html
R v K [2020] EWHC 841
Judgment date: 27 February 2020
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/841.html
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’?