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
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.
Piercing Trust Structures in Switzerland in Aid of Financial Claims in England
[2026] 1 FRJ 26. Swiss courts possess domestic tools to pierce through foreign trust structures and make orders in respect of their underlying assets. This article examines what those tools are and how they may be deployed in aid of financial remedies proceedings in England.
Delaying Departure? Domicile in Divorce Cases
[2026] 1 FRJ 16. In Ramana v Kist Ramana [2025] EWCA Civ 1022, [2025] 4 WLR 120 the Court of Appeal was concerned with the question of how a domicile of choice may be lost. This article explores the arguments made at the hearing, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the likely implications.