FDRs
-
Shield v Shield [2013] EWHC 3525 (Fam)1 November 2013
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/3525.html
- Cases
- FDRs
- TLATA Applications
-
V v W [2020] EWFC 842 December 2020
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2020/84.html
- Cases
- FDRs
-
G v C [2020] EWFC B3516 July 2020
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2020/B35.html
- Cases
- FDRs
-
Shokrollah-Babaee v Shokrollah-Babaee [2019] EWHC 2135 (Fam)25 July 2019
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2019/2135.html
- Cases
- FDRs
- Enforcement
-
LS v PS [2021] EWHC 3508 (Fam)18 January 2022
An application by an intervenor in financial remedy proceedings for disclosure of privileged material from a PFDR was refused. The intervenor, a litigation funder, is seeking to set aside a consent order reached at the PFDR on the basis it was deliberately structured to ensure W could not meet her debt. The court acknowledged that a number of competing policy considerations were engaged, in the process attaching importance to the status of litigation funders. Whilst this application was refused on the facts, Roberts J referred the “absolute bar” (as Munby P has interpreted paragraph 6.2 PD9A) on use of anything said or done at FDR in support of a separate action in civil proceedings to the Family Procedure Rules Committee. In further judicial support for private dispute resolution, Roberts J thought it artificial to draw a distinction between the privilege attaching under paragraph 6.2 PD9A to “in-court” and private FDRs.
- Cases
- FDRs
- Privilege
- Disclosure
- Litigation Funding
- Joinder of Third Parties
©2023 Class Legal classlegal.com
