national archives Delay Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications) Open in LIN v PAR [2025] EWFC 401 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/401?query=lin+par LIN v PAR - Find Case Law - The National ArchivesThe National Archives home pageMR JUSTICE PEEL Related K v K [2026] EWFC 83 (B) DJ Parker’s decision emphasises the importance of the court transcript where there is a dispute as to what was said by the judge. Ultimately H’s application to set aside a final order by consent failed because H was wrong; the FDR judge had not given him a 28-day cooling off period. LIN v PAR [2025] EWFC 401 Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The couple's 2002 draft consent order had not been sealed by the court, but the parties had acted upon it with the belief that it had been formalised. Peel J determined that it constituted a Xydhias agreement. Silberschmidt v Richards [2025] EWHC 2841 (Fam) Poole J. Husband’s appeal against setting aside of final consent order for fraudulent non-disclosure dismissed; wife’s delay not determinative. Read the journal Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 2 | Summer Open in Related K v K [2026] EWFC 83 (B) DJ Parker’s decision emphasises the importance of the court transcript where there is a dispute as to what was said by the judge. Ultimately H’s application to set aside a final order by consent failed because H was wrong; the FDR judge had not given him a 28-day cooling off period. LIN v PAR [2025] EWFC 401 Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The couple's 2002 draft consent order had not been sealed by the court, but the parties had acted upon it with the belief that it had been formalised. Peel J determined that it constituted a Xydhias agreement. Silberschmidt v Richards [2025] EWHC 2841 (Fam) Poole J. Husband’s appeal against setting aside of final consent order for fraudulent non-disclosure dismissed; wife’s delay not determinative. Latest Tech Corner: Only 11%. What Technology Can Do About the Pensions Gap on Divorce [2026] 3 FRJ 266. Only 11% of divorcees with a pension not yet in payment made any arrangement to share it, according to the Fair Shares study, which also found that over a third of divorcees did not know the value of their own pension. Ignoring the pensions is not an option. Costs in Financial Remedy Proceedings: Time for Greater Discipline? [2026] 3 FRJ 206. If costs discipline is to be meaningful, parties must understand from the outset that disproportionate litigation expenditure will ultimately remain their own responsibility even in a needs case. Money spent on costs is money removed from the resources available to the family. IFoA Working Party for Pensions on Divorce: Full Resources Now Published Building on the work of the Pensions Advisory Group and the IFoA thematic review of work by actuary PODEs, an IFoA working party has published essential new materials to further develop good practice in this area. Family lawyers should look for, and request, PODE adoption of these materials. is curated by The Leaders In Family Law Books & Software EXPLORE OUR PRODUCTS
K v K [2026] EWFC 83 (B) DJ Parker’s decision emphasises the importance of the court transcript where there is a dispute as to what was said by the judge. Ultimately H’s application to set aside a final order by consent failed because H was wrong; the FDR judge had not given him a 28-day cooling off period.
LIN v PAR [2025] EWFC 401 Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The couple's 2002 draft consent order had not been sealed by the court, but the parties had acted upon it with the belief that it had been formalised. Peel J determined that it constituted a Xydhias agreement.
Silberschmidt v Richards [2025] EWHC 2841 (Fam) Poole J. Husband’s appeal against setting aside of final consent order for fraudulent non-disclosure dismissed; wife’s delay not determinative.
K v K [2026] EWFC 83 (B) DJ Parker’s decision emphasises the importance of the court transcript where there is a dispute as to what was said by the judge. Ultimately H’s application to set aside a final order by consent failed because H was wrong; the FDR judge had not given him a 28-day cooling off period.
LIN v PAR [2025] EWFC 401 Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The couple's 2002 draft consent order had not been sealed by the court, but the parties had acted upon it with the belief that it had been formalised. Peel J determined that it constituted a Xydhias agreement.
Silberschmidt v Richards [2025] EWHC 2841 (Fam) Poole J. Husband’s appeal against setting aside of final consent order for fraudulent non-disclosure dismissed; wife’s delay not determinative.
Tech Corner: Only 11%. What Technology Can Do About the Pensions Gap on Divorce [2026] 3 FRJ 266. Only 11% of divorcees with a pension not yet in payment made any arrangement to share it, according to the Fair Shares study, which also found that over a third of divorcees did not know the value of their own pension. Ignoring the pensions is not an option.
Costs in Financial Remedy Proceedings: Time for Greater Discipline? [2026] 3 FRJ 206. If costs discipline is to be meaningful, parties must understand from the outset that disproportionate litigation expenditure will ultimately remain their own responsibility even in a needs case. Money spent on costs is money removed from the resources available to the family.
IFoA Working Party for Pensions on Divorce: Full Resources Now Published Building on the work of the Pensions Advisory Group and the IFoA thematic review of work by actuary PODEs, an IFoA working party has published essential new materials to further develop good practice in this area. Family lawyers should look for, and request, PODE adoption of these materials.