Joinder of Third Parties
-
Simon v Simon & Level (Joinder) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 2921 March 2022
Nicholas Cusworth QC. Convoluted procedural history in which a consent order was sealed by the court without knowledge of other relevant applications, and W received no liquid capital capable of being used to repay her litigation funder. Funder therefore…
- Cases
- Litigation Funding
- Joinder of Third Parties
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
-
Fisher Meredith v JH and PH (Financial Remedy: Appeal: Wasted Costs) [2012] EWHC 408 (Fam)2 March 2012
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2012/408.html
- Cases
- TLATA Applications
- Interest
- Joinder of Third Parties
- First Appointments
-
TM v AH [2016] EWHC 572 (Fam)4 March 2016
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/572.html
- Cases
- Variation of Settlements
- Joinder of Third Parties
- Trusts
-
DR v GR & Ors [2013] EWHC 1196 (Fam)10 May 2013
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/1196.html
- Cases
- Variation of Settlements
- Joinder of Third Parties
-
Edgerton v Edgerton & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 18124 February 2012
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/181.html
- Cases
- Joinder of Third Parties
-
TL v ML & Ors (Ancillary Relief: Claim Against Assets of Extended Family) [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam), [2006] 1 FCR 465, [2006] 1 FLR 12639 December 2005
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2005/2860.html
- Cases
- FDRs
- Life Expectancy
- TLATA Applications
- Joinder of Third Parties
- Legal Services Payment Orders
- First Appointments
-
Goldstone v Goldstone [2011] EWCA Civ 39, [2011] 1 FCR 324, [2011] 1 FLR 192628 January 2011
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/39.html
- Cases
- TLATA Applications
- Joinder of Third Parties
-
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
