ST v AR: The Origin of Assets and the Assessment of Needs

As Mostyn J observed in Clarke v Clarke [2023] 2 FLR 1 at [36], Peel J’s oft-quoted summary of the law in WC v HC (Financial Remedies Agreements) (Rev 1) [2022] 2 FLR 1110 at [21] is an ‘impeccable synopsis of the jurisprudence applicable in financial remedy cases [which] has become justly famous’. Somewhat more colloquially, Peel J has himself said (with a smile) that he has heard his summary described as ‘the Noddy Guide’ to financial remedies.

• Blog

• Assets
• Needs

• Nicholas Allen KC
• Andrew Day

!01/04/2025 10:20

Child Maintenance and Mortgage Payments – New Guidance: LM v SSWP & NM [2024] UKUT 259 (AAC)

What happens if the Child Maintenance Service has determined that a non-resident parent is required to pay child maintenance to the parent-with-care, but payments are also being made towards the mortgage secured on the property in which PWC still lives with the qualifying child/children? Does it matter if the property is jointly owned by NRP and PWC? Will those mortgage payments reduce the amount of child maintenance?

• Blog

• Mortgages
• Child Maintenance

• Gwynfor Evans

!29/11/2024 06:00

Schedule 1 Property Structures

The main focus in cases under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 is often on how to meet the housing needs of a child; understandably so, as it is usually the largest cost. It can also be the starting point for settlement as the type of property and loca…

• Journal

• Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications

• Jemma Pollock
• Rebecca Fisher
• Pieter Boodt

!06/07/2022 07:07

DF v YB [2025] EWFC 46 (B)14 February 2025

Recorder Nicholas Allen KC. Judgment following four-day final hearing, in which the parties agreed that it was a sharing case and that the net capital assets should be divided equally. The dispute centred around issues of computation, including tax issues and add-back vs Wells sharing.

• Cases

• Loans
• Tax
• Debts
• Add-Backs

• Rebekah Batt

On v On [2024] EWFC 37911 December 2024

HHJ Booth (now retired), sitting as a High Court judge, considered whether the duty of full and frank disclosure ends at the arbitration hearing, the judgment, and also whether the arbitral award should be treated as a ‘judgment’. Held: the duty of full and frank disclosure continued until the final disposition of the claims by the court.

• Cases

• Dishonesty
• arbitration
• Disclosure
• Fraud

• Elizabeth Bowden