M v M [2015] EWFC B63
Judgment date: 25 January 2015
Related
OO v QQ [2025] EWFC 310 (B)
HHJ Hyde KC. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The husband had failed to engage with most of the process. The case was determined on a needs basis given the wife’s terminal cancer diagnosis.
NI v AD [2025] EWHC 2997 (Fam)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/2997?court=ewhc%2Ffam
Special Contributions: ‘Genius’, Guesswork and Gender Discrimination
This article revisits the contested terrain of ‘special contribution’, and questions whether it retains any legitimate role in contemporary financial remedy jurisprudence. It argues that the concept is both theoretically discriminatory and practically uncertain.
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 3 | Winter
Related
OO v QQ [2025] EWFC 310 (B)
HHJ Hyde KC. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The husband had failed to engage with most of the process. The case was determined on a needs basis given the wife’s terminal cancer diagnosis.
NI v AD [2025] EWHC 2997 (Fam)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/2997?court=ewhc%2Ffam
Special Contributions: ‘Genius’, Guesswork and Gender Discrimination
This article revisits the contested terrain of ‘special contribution’, and questions whether it retains any legitimate role in contemporary financial remedy jurisprudence. It argues that the concept is both theoretically discriminatory and practically uncertain.
Latest
Parliamentary Debate Reveals Government’s Latest Intentions for Financial Remedies and Cohabitation Law Reform
The Government gave a significant update on Monday 10 November 2025 in the House of Lords regarding its plans for financial remedies and cohabitation law reform. It signals a major overhaul of how the law treats relationship breakdown across all types of couples.
Promises Unkept: Unpaid Child Maintenance and the Price of Inaction
Unpaid child maintenance remains one of the most persistent and under-addressed financial injustices affecting separated families in England and Wales. The failures of the CMS destabilise the very integrity of financial provision for children post-separation.
Finality and Funding: a Further Thought on CC v UU Concerning the Availability of LSPOs for Enforcement Proceedings
In the case of CC v UU, concerning post-final order LSPOs, did Peel J fall into error? Should the judgment have been decided differently?