Blog

Conduct and Its Consequences: Goddard-Watts and TK v LK

Conduct and Its Consequences: Goddard-Watts and TK v LK

In a timely and thought-provoking article published on the FRJ website in October last year (‘Is It Time to Consign the “Gasp” Factor to the History Books?’), Olivia Piercy and Anita Mehta considered the decisions of Sir Jonathan Cohen in Traharne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27, Her Honour Judge Reardon

Multiplied Propagation

Multiplied Propagation

‘An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does the truth become error because nobody will see it.’ (Mahatma Gandhi) In the six months between 30 September 2023 and 1 April 2024, 24 financial remedy judgments which were not mainly about the maintenance of children (and

Single and Joint: Peel J Discusses Expert Evidence in BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11

Single and Joint: Peel J Discusses Expert Evidence in BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2024/11.html Disclaimer: Amelia Alston and Alex Laing represent (with Simon Bruce, Sarah Jane Lenihan and Isabela Maculan of Dawson Cornwell and Richard Todd KC of 1 Hare Court Chambers) the applicant wife in BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11. In

Quantifying Periodical Payments by Reference to the Needs Principle: Surveying the Wood Not the Trees

Quantifying Periodical Payments by Reference to the Needs Principle: Surveying the Wood Not the Trees

Tensions between competing propositions in financial remedy cases are not unusual. For example in Re P (Child: Financial Provision) [2003] 2 FLR 865 Thorpe LJ at [48] referred in the context of CA 1989 Schedule 1 to: ‘an inevitable tension between the two propositions, both correct in law, first that

AS v RS and Part III Applications

AS v RS and Part III Applications

Applications for permission to bring proceedings pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (‘Part III’) have been something of a hot topic lately, following the handing down of the Supreme Court’s decision in Potanina (Respondent) v Potanin (Applicant) [2024] UKSC 3. In that case,

Fabricated Judicial Decisions and ‘Hallucinations’ – a Salutary Tale on the Use of AI

Fabricated Judicial Decisions and ‘Hallucinations’ – a Salutary Tale on the Use of AI

The Information Commissioner’s Office defines Artificial Intelligence (AI) as ‘an umbrella term for a range of algorithm-based technologies that solve complex tasks by carrying out functions that previously required human thinking’.[[1]] There can be no doubt that the use of AI within the legal market is growing rapidly.

Rough Justice

Rough Justice

Costs cases in family proceedings used to be few and far between, but a recent decision of Arbuthnot J in the case of KS v VS [2024] EWHC 278 (Fam) has caused something of a stir in the profession. In particular it raises the question of how far, if at