M v M [2015] EWFC B63
Judgment date: 25 January 2015
Related
MRU v ECR (Financial Remedies) [2025] EWFC 218 (B)
Deputy District Judge Rose. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The judge dealt with issues of conduct, cost orders and transparency.
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
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 3 | Winter
Related
MRU v ECR (Financial Remedies) [2025] EWFC 218 (B)
Deputy District Judge Rose. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The judge dealt with issues of conduct, cost orders and transparency.
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
Latest
National Iranian Oil Company v Retirement, Savings and Welfare Fund of Oil Industry Workers v Crescent Gas Corporation Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 211 and Its Implications for TLATA Cases
The Court of Appeal confirms that a declaration of trust respecting land or any interest therein requires the personal signature of the settlor, not a third party on their behalf. This has implications where it is alleged a trust of land has arisen by virtue of an express declaration of trust.
Bundle of Joy: New Practice Direction on Bundles, Position Statements etc., Effective 2 March 2026
Practice Guidance Update No. 6 of 2025 contains amendments to a range of existing FPR PDs, including a comprehensive re-writing of PD 27A, which started life as the ‘Bundles Direction’.
Interested Third Parties Opposing an Order for Sale
A v N [2025] EWFC 371 (B) sets out non-exhaustive factors to consider when a third party with a beneficial interest in the family home opposes an order for sale, and considers how the court will balance the needs of the third party and the spouses.