
HHJ Tindal. An unusual case, involving two appeals arising from longstanding TLATA claims involving the former family home. Mr Needham’s application to vary the consent order which was made in 2017 was refused. He sought ‘permission to apply’ to set aside that refusal, permission being required because of an LCRO. Permission to apply was refused; Mr Needham appealed. This judgment deals with his application to set aside that refusal.
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.
As helpfully summarised by Calum Smith on the FRJ website Mostyn J’s judgment in James v Seymour [2023] EWHC 844 (Fam) 675 included a renewed attempt to tackle how Child Maintenance should be calculated, effectively refining the methodology first se…
!29/05/2023 08:00
Sir James Munby reviews the new Dictionary of the Court of Protection.
!23/04/2025 09:50
Cobb J. Application of James v Seymour formula for child maintenance under Sch 1 in this long-running case.
message