When It’s Good, It’s Very Good… The ES2, Aged Three; a Pedant’s Perspective

On 11 January 2025, the pro forma schedule of assets known to all as the ES2 turned three years old. Just like the little girl (with the little curl, right in the middle of her forehead) of nursery rhyme fame, who one imagines may be of a similar age, when it’s good, it’s very good, and when it’s bad, it’s horrid.

• Blog

• Asset Schedules

• Andrew Day

!11/04/2025 07:00

X v Y [2025] EWHC 727 (Fam)11 March 2025

Trowell J. Wife’s unsuccessful appeal against the rejection of her Barrell application to reopen a final order in a needs case following the husband’s father’s death. Trowell J agreed with the trial judge that the husband’s inheritance prospects were uncertain, and the principle of finality ought to be favoured over re-opening the case.

• Cases

• Barrell Applications
• Appeals Out Of Time
• Appeals
• Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)

• Jasmine Knapman

Simon v Simon [2025] EWFC 897 April 2025

Peel J. Cost judgment from Peel J in ‘highly unusual’ financial remedy proceedings, in which a litigation loan provider successfully applied to be joined and to set aside a consent order which prevented them recovering a loan to W.

• Cases

• Conduct
• Costs
• Joinder of Third Parties
• Efficient Conduct
• Consent Orders
• Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)

• Katherine Luckhurst

TA v SB [2025] EWFC 61 (B)5 March 2025

HHJ Muzaffer. The only question the court was concerned with was what should happen to the jointly-owned FMH. However, this case illustrates the difficulties arising when one party lacks capacity to litigate and is dependent on the Official Solicitor, but where security for that party’s costs may not be readily available.

• Cases

• Sale of Property
• Housing Need
• Legal Aid
• Official Solicitor
• Capacity
• Litigation Friend

• Vivien Croly

Transplanting Costs Order Principles to LSPOs and Legal Costs Funding Orders

In family proceedings, the court has two key tools at its disposal to address the funding of litigation. The first is via an LSPO to meet the incurrence of future legal fees, and the second, quite distinct in nature and purpose, is a costs order, providing for one party to pay the costs that have already been incurred by the other party.

• Blog

• Costs
• Legal Services Payment Orders

• Grace-Mary Sweeney

!07/04/2025 10:00