JP v NP [2014] EWHC 1101 (Fam)
Judgment date: 09 April 2014
Related
Potanina v Potanin (Case Management) [2026] EWFC 80
MacDonald J. Case management decision on the wife's claim under Part III Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 after a Russian divorce. The court refused the husband's applications to adjourn proceedings and for a split hearing, lifted a stay on disclosure, and set directions.
BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236
Peel J. Save for four specific matters, parties cannot refer to what happened at the pFDR. The Financial Remedies Court – Primary Principles paragraph 8 issued by Mostyn J and HHJ Hess goes too far by saying that the court should be told that offers were made and that an was indication given.
GH v GH – FDRs Are Not to Be Dispensed With
If ever there were any doubts as to the importance of the FDR appointment and the parties’ attendance at one, then Mr Justice Peel has unequivocally put those doubts to rest in his judgment in GH v GH [2024] EWHC 2547 (Fam), published on 3 October 2024. The court’s
Related
Potanina v Potanin (Case Management) [2026] EWFC 80
MacDonald J. Case management decision on the wife's claim under Part III Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 after a Russian divorce. The court refused the husband's applications to adjourn proceedings and for a split hearing, lifted a stay on disclosure, and set directions.
BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236
Peel J. Save for four specific matters, parties cannot refer to what happened at the pFDR. The Financial Remedies Court – Primary Principles paragraph 8 issued by Mostyn J and HHJ Hess goes too far by saying that the court should be told that offers were made and that an was indication given.
GH v GH – FDRs Are Not to Be Dispensed With
If ever there were any doubts as to the importance of the FDR appointment and the parties’ attendance at one, then Mr Justice Peel has unequivocally put those doubts to rest in his judgment in GH v GH [2024] EWHC 2547 (Fam), published on 3 October 2024. The court’s
Latest
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.
The 2026 FRC Guide: What Practitioners Need to Know
Watch the recording of ‘The 2026 FRC Guide: What Practitioners Need to Know’, first broadcast on Wednesday 6th May 2026 with the authors of the new FRC Guide - HHJ Edward Hess, Nicholas Allen KC, Michael Allum, Lily Mottahedan and Rhys Taylor
Mazur in the Court of Appeal: the Judgment That Saved Half the Profession from Accidental Criminality
The Court of Appeal rewrites the landscape of ‘conduct of litigation’ – Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369.