FRC Corner Regional guidance - London Regional Guidance Peel J – Guidance on allocation of a case to HCJ level published in May 2024. https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/allocation-of-financial-remedies-cases-to-high-court-judge-level/ 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 – 2025 Issue 3 | Winter 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 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? 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
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?