Order 3.6 – Directions Order on Application for Permission to Appeal
Related
Order 2.3 – Order for Leave to Make Application under MFPA 1984 Pt III
Order 2.3 - Order for Leave to Make Application under MFPA 1984 Pt IIIorder-2.3-order-for-leave-to-make-application-under-mfpa-1984-pt-iii.docx48 KBdownload-circle
Order 3.5 – Free-standing Maintenance Pending Suit Order
Order 3.5 - Free-standing Maintenance Pending Suit Orderorder-3.5-free-standing-maintenance-pending-suit-order.docx52 KBdownload-circle
Order 3.4 – Free-standing Legal Services Payment Order
Order 3.4 - Free-standing Legal Services Payment Orderorder-3.4-free-standing-legal-services-payment-order.docx52 KBdownload-circle
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring
Related
Order 2.3 – Order for Leave to Make Application under MFPA 1984 Pt III
Order 2.3 - Order for Leave to Make Application under MFPA 1984 Pt IIIorder-2.3-order-for-leave-to-make-application-under-mfpa-1984-pt-iii.docx48 KBdownload-circle
Order 3.5 – Free-standing Maintenance Pending Suit Order
Order 3.5 - Free-standing Maintenance Pending Suit Orderorder-3.5-free-standing-maintenance-pending-suit-order.docx52 KBdownload-circle
Order 3.4 – Free-standing Legal Services Payment Order
Order 3.4 - Free-standing Legal Services Payment Orderorder-3.4-free-standing-legal-services-payment-order.docx52 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’?