
If asked, Mr Standish may say that three rounds of litigation, with another to follow, were worth it – Mrs Standish, perhaps not. But for lawyers, with many questions left unanswered, and a feeling that the opportunity to settle the law on matrimonialisation with clarity and certainty has passed us by, it may not have been worthwhile.
!09/07/2025 10:15
In a previous post Nicholas Allen KC considered the potential impact of Waggott v Waggott [2018] 2 FLR 406 on the argument that income (or the assets or capital generated therefrom) earned in or referable to the first 12 months post-separation should be classed as matrimonial property to which the sharing principle applies. This issue has now been revisited in OS v DT [2025] EWFC 156 (B) per HHJ Hess.
!08/07/2025 07:00
Judgment by DDJ G Evans in a modest asset case involving significant non-disclosure and the taking of evidence from a respondent in a non-Hague Convention jurisdiction (here, Pakistan).
Cobb J. Third-largest financial remedy case in the jurisdiction’s history. The judge set aside a separation agreement entered into by W under significant emotional and psychological pressure.
Mostyn J.In the first reported judgment on security for costs since the advent of the FPR, Mostyn J gives a helpful review of the applicable principles in family cases. Unlike in civil case law, he considers that the rarity of costs orders requires the co…
message