Cases
Sharing Principle
Contingent Assets and Liabilities
Spousal Maintenance (Quantum)
Bonuses
Clean Breaks and Term Maintenance
Variation Applications
Needs
SS v NS (Spousal Maintenance) [2014] EWHC 4183 (Fam)
Judgment date: 10 December 2014
Related
Needs Must as the Devil Drives: An Analysis of Pension Sharing in Needs Cases
[2026] 1 FRJ 43. Despite PAG1 and W v H [2020] EWFC B10 stressing the importance of treating a case on its own facts, somehow a view developed that pensions should inevitably be divided to achieve equality of income in all ‘needs’ cases. The source is unclear, but it’s worth starting with PAG1.
RKV v JWC [2025] EWFC 430 (B)
Recorder Rhys Taylor. Final hearing in W’s financial remedy application before Recorder Taylor in a case involving significant non-disclosure and non-engagement by H.
JK v LM [2026] EWFC 32 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/32?court=ewfc
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring
Related
Needs Must as the Devil Drives: An Analysis of Pension Sharing in Needs Cases
[2026] 1 FRJ 43. Despite PAG1 and W v H [2020] EWFC B10 stressing the importance of treating a case on its own facts, somehow a view developed that pensions should inevitably be divided to achieve equality of income in all ‘needs’ cases. The source is unclear, but it’s worth starting with PAG1.
RKV v JWC [2025] EWFC 430 (B)
Recorder Rhys Taylor. Final hearing in W’s financial remedy application before Recorder Taylor in a case involving significant non-disclosure and non-engagement by H.
JK v LM [2026] EWFC 32 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/32?court=ewfc
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’?