Final Reflections on Standish: Was It All Worthwhile?

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.

• Blog

• Matrimonial and Non-Matrimonial Property
• Matrimonialisation

• Calum Smith

!09/07/2025 10:15

PN v SA [2025] EWFC 14123 May 2025

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.

• Cases

• Agreements
• Coercive Control
• Undue Influence

• Caitlin McHale

‘You Want Me to Do What Now?’ – The Return-to-Work Question and the Quiet Cost of Executive Marriage

She hadn’t written a CV in 20 years. Hadn’t needed to. When her ex’s career took off, they moved every few years. She held everything else together while he earned the money. But ‘everything else’ was a lot. A job that never ended, never paid, and never came with recognition, until now, when it’s being questioned. Because now, as part of the divorce, she’s being asked to outline her ‘return-to-work plan’.

• Journal

• Economic Disparity
• Spousal Maintenance (Quantum)
• 5-Year Career Plan
• Return to Work

• Ceri Griffiths

!30/06/2025 06:00

OS v DT and Post-Separation Income: Fairness Trumps Inflexibility

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.

• Blog

• Post-Separation Accrual

• Nicholas Allen KC
• Michael Allum

!08/07/2025 07:00

PZ v ZD (Financial Remedies: Needs: Adverse Inferences: Taking of Evidence from Outside the Jurisdiction) [2025] EWFC 171 (B)20 March 2025

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).

• Cases

• Indemnity Against Unknown Liabilities
• Adverse Inferences
• Attendance From Outside The Jurisdiction
• Debts
• Needs

• Alex Byrne