FRC Corner Regional guidance - London Zonal Guidance Regional Guidance london Message from HHJ Edward Hess about changes to the operation of the London Financial Remedies Court to take effect in January 2023 Message from HHJ Edward Hess to Practitioners about changes to the London FRCmessage-from-hhj-edward-hess-to-practitioners-about-changes-to-the-london-frc.pdf157 KBdownload-circle Related FRC Lead Judges - May 2025 FRC Lead Judges and courts - May 2025frc-lead-judges-and-courts-may-2025.pdf103 KBdownload-circle Centralisation Practice Note 27.03.25 Centralisation Practice Note 27.03.25centralisation-practice-note-27.03.25.pdf77 KBdownload-circle LONDON FRC FEBRUARY 2025 PRACTICE NOTE FOR PRACTITIONERS LONDON FRC FEBRUARY 2025 PRACTICE NOTE FOR PRACTITIONERSlondon-frc-february-2025-practice-note-for-practitioners.pdf261 KBdownload-circle Read the journal Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring Related FRC Lead Judges - May 2025 FRC Lead Judges and courts - May 2025frc-lead-judges-and-courts-may-2025.pdf103 KBdownload-circle Centralisation Practice Note 27.03.25 Centralisation Practice Note 27.03.25centralisation-practice-note-27.03.25.pdf77 KBdownload-circle LONDON FRC FEBRUARY 2025 PRACTICE NOTE FOR PRACTITIONERS LONDON FRC FEBRUARY 2025 PRACTICE NOTE FOR PRACTITIONERSlondon-frc-february-2025-practice-note-for-practitioners.pdf261 KBdownload-circle Latest FRJ – ‘Well, He (or She) Didn’t Ask!’ – the Impact of Non-Disclosure When the Question Isn’t Asked Is it a shield to non-disclosure by one party during financial remedy proceedings if the other party could (and perhaps should) have asked? The duty on parties to give full and frank financial disclosure is not merely a private obligation between them; it is a duty to the court. 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. Housing Particulars: Mind The Gap What can the court do when there's a significant gap between the bottom of the applicant’s range and the top of the respondent’s range? Can the court take up the invitation made by counsel to ‘conduct its own research on Rightmove if it wishes’? is curated by The Leaders In Family Law Books & Software EXPLORE OUR PRODUCTS
FRC Lead Judges - May 2025 FRC Lead Judges and courts - May 2025frc-lead-judges-and-courts-may-2025.pdf103 KBdownload-circle
Centralisation Practice Note 27.03.25 Centralisation Practice Note 27.03.25centralisation-practice-note-27.03.25.pdf77 KBdownload-circle
LONDON FRC FEBRUARY 2025 PRACTICE NOTE FOR PRACTITIONERS LONDON FRC FEBRUARY 2025 PRACTICE NOTE FOR PRACTITIONERSlondon-frc-february-2025-practice-note-for-practitioners.pdf261 KBdownload-circle
FRC Lead Judges - May 2025 FRC Lead Judges and courts - May 2025frc-lead-judges-and-courts-may-2025.pdf103 KBdownload-circle
Centralisation Practice Note 27.03.25 Centralisation Practice Note 27.03.25centralisation-practice-note-27.03.25.pdf77 KBdownload-circle
LONDON FRC FEBRUARY 2025 PRACTICE NOTE FOR PRACTITIONERS LONDON FRC FEBRUARY 2025 PRACTICE NOTE FOR PRACTITIONERSlondon-frc-february-2025-practice-note-for-practitioners.pdf261 KBdownload-circle
FRJ – ‘Well, He (or She) Didn’t Ask!’ – the Impact of Non-Disclosure When the Question Isn’t Asked Is it a shield to non-disclosure by one party during financial remedy proceedings if the other party could (and perhaps should) have asked? The duty on parties to give full and frank financial disclosure is not merely a private obligation between them; it is a duty to the court.
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.
Housing Particulars: Mind The Gap What can the court do when there's a significant gap between the bottom of the applicant’s range and the top of the respondent’s range? Can the court take up the invitation made by counsel to ‘conduct its own research on Rightmove if it wishes’?