President’s Memorandum: Witness Statements
Related
Gottle O’ Geer: Witness Statements and Their Misuse
Most financial remedy cases don’t ‘go to trial’, for a host of good reasons: litigation is expensive, stressful and uncertain: even the strongest-looking cases have been known to develop cracks when exposed to cross-examination. Sometimes these emerge in answer to the gentlest of questioning.
AB v CD [2025] EWFC 253 (B)
DJ Dodsworth’s short judgment gives a blueprint of how not to prepare a case for trial, and how not to make a relief from sanctions application.
Financial Remedy Court Organogram - November 2025
The Financial Remedies Court Organogram - November 2025The Financial Remedies Court Organogram - November 2025.pdf1 MBdownload-circle
Related
Gottle O’ Geer: Witness Statements and Their Misuse
Most financial remedy cases don’t ‘go to trial’, for a host of good reasons: litigation is expensive, stressful and uncertain: even the strongest-looking cases have been known to develop cracks when exposed to cross-examination. Sometimes these emerge in answer to the gentlest of questioning.
AB v CD [2025] EWFC 253 (B)
DJ Dodsworth’s short judgment gives a blueprint of how not to prepare a case for trial, and how not to make a relief from sanctions application.
Financial Remedy Court Organogram - November 2025
The Financial Remedies Court Organogram - November 2025The Financial Remedies Court Organogram - November 2025.pdf1 MBdownload-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’?