R v K [2018] EWFC 59
Judgment date: 26 January 2018
Other recent cases
H v W (Xydhias Agreements) [2025] EWFC 163 (B)
District Judge Field. W's application that H should show cause as to why a final order in their financial remedy proceedings should not be made to reflect a concluded agreement alleged to have been made in correspondence, subject to matters of implementation and court approval.
JT v RL & Anor [2025] EWHC 1335
Keehan J. Application by mother to enforce a contract in relation to a property purchased for her and the parties’ child.
AT v NB (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2025] EWFC 248 (B)
DDJ Mark Harrop. Judgment on wife's application for interim maintenance.
Read the journal


Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 2 | Summer
Other recent cases
H v W (Xydhias Agreements) [2025] EWFC 163 (B)
District Judge Field. W's application that H should show cause as to why a final order in their financial remedy proceedings should not be made to reflect a concluded agreement alleged to have been made in correspondence, subject to matters of implementation and court approval.
JT v RL & Anor [2025] EWHC 1335
Keehan J. Application by mother to enforce a contract in relation to a property purchased for her and the parties’ child.
AT v NB (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2025] EWFC 248 (B)
DDJ Mark Harrop. Judgment on wife's application for interim maintenance.
Latest

Pensions and Divorce – Which Valuation Should You Use?
One issue which crops up regularly when advising parties on the division of pension rights on divorce is how pensions should be valued, and in particular whether the cash equivalent transfer value (CETV or CEV) is appropriate for this purpose.

The Costs of ‘Costs of Sale’
As part of the computation stage of financial remedy proceedings great care is taken to ascertain the accurate net value of the family home and other property owned by the parties or in which they have an interest.

Helliwell v Entwistle: Some Troubling Aspects
Following King LJ’s judgment in Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055, Sir Nicholas Mostyn reconsiders his reasoning in Cummings v Fawn [2023] EWHC 830 (Fam) and concludes that some of his language needs to be modified.