author Sam Watts Sam Watts is a barrister at Coram Chambers. He has an established practice in financial remedies, including claims under TLATA 1996 and Part III MFPA 1984. Related Read the journal Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 2 | Summer Related Latest Finality and Funding: The Implications of a Clean Break following CC v UU The judgment of Peel J in CC v UU [2025] EWFC 214 provides a further glimpse of the LSPO regime, and seeks to establish definitively when the opportunity to seek an LSPO ceases. 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. Ministry of Justice Breaches the Overriding Objective It is fundamental to the procedural code that dealing with a case justly includes ‘expeditiously and fairly’. The savage cuts imposed by the MOJ, with very limited notice and no widespread consultation, will lead to ‘justice delayed’, i.e. ‘justice denied’. is curated by The Leaders In Family Law Books & Software EXPLORE OUR PRODUCTS
Finality and Funding: The Implications of a Clean Break following CC v UU The judgment of Peel J in CC v UU [2025] EWFC 214 provides a further glimpse of the LSPO regime, and seeks to establish definitively when the opportunity to seek an LSPO ceases.
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.
Ministry of Justice Breaches the Overriding Objective It is fundamental to the procedural code that dealing with a case justly includes ‘expeditiously and fairly’. The savage cuts imposed by the MOJ, with very limited notice and no widespread consultation, will lead to ‘justice delayed’, i.e. ‘justice denied’.