author Maisie Lockyer Maisie Lockyer is an Associate at Burgess Mee. Related Read the journal Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 3 | Winter Related Latest The Reluctant Pension Credit Member [2026] 1 FRJ 39. In the case of AP v TP [2025] EWFC 190 (B) a financial remedy order was made by consent, following an FDR, which included a pension sharing order in W’s favour. Difficulties began when W failed to provide the necessary information to permit the pension share to be implemented. Piercing Trust Structures in Switzerland in Aid of Financial Claims in England [2026] 1 FRJ 26. Swiss courts possess domestic tools to pierce through foreign trust structures and make orders in respect of their underlying assets. This article examines what those tools are and how they may be deployed in aid of financial remedies proceedings in England. Delaying Departure? Domicile in Divorce Cases [2026] 1 FRJ 16. In Ramana v Kist Ramana [2025] EWCA Civ 1022, [2025] 4 WLR 120 the Court of Appeal was concerned with the question of how a domicile of choice may be lost. This article explores the arguments made at the hearing, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the likely implications. is curated by The Leaders In Family Law Books & Software EXPLORE OUR PRODUCTS
The Reluctant Pension Credit Member [2026] 1 FRJ 39. In the case of AP v TP [2025] EWFC 190 (B) a financial remedy order was made by consent, following an FDR, which included a pension sharing order in W’s favour. Difficulties began when W failed to provide the necessary information to permit the pension share to be implemented.
Piercing Trust Structures in Switzerland in Aid of Financial Claims in England [2026] 1 FRJ 26. Swiss courts possess domestic tools to pierce through foreign trust structures and make orders in respect of their underlying assets. This article examines what those tools are and how they may be deployed in aid of financial remedies proceedings in England.
Delaying Departure? Domicile in Divorce Cases [2026] 1 FRJ 16. In Ramana v Kist Ramana [2025] EWCA Civ 1022, [2025] 4 WLR 120 the Court of Appeal was concerned with the question of how a domicile of choice may be lost. This article explores the arguments made at the hearing, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the likely implications.