VP v SP [2025] EWFC 447 (B)
Deputy District Judge Cassidy Hope. Judgment in financial remedy proceedings, addressing needs-based distribution where one party is the primary carer of a disabled adult child.
Matrimonial and Non-Matrimonial Property
BM v MB and Others [2025] EWFC 129
Fiona Hay sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. Final hearing. The key issues revolved around a business which H had inherited shortly before the parties began cohabiting but which had been transformed during the marriage, arguments concerning non-matrimonial property, and a s 37 application.
A Critical Take on Standish
The case of Standish was all about the correct approach to be taken to the concept of ‘matrimonialisation’. This article deals with one question: whether the ‘new test’ announced by the Supreme Court is worse than the ‘old test’ enunciated by the Court of Appeal at the prior stage of proceedings.
OS v DT [2025] EWFC 156
HHJ Hess. Financial remedies final hearing heard by HHJ Hess involving total assets over £9m, and disputes concerning non-matrimonial property including post-separation income, and child periodical payments where the parties had equal shared care of the children.
Final Reflections on Standish: Was It All Worthwhile?
If asked, Mr Standish may say that three rounds of litigation, with another to follow, were worth it – Mrs Standish, perhaps not. But with many questions left unanswered, and many new questions arising, there is an unshakeable feeling that this was an opportunity missed.
Mr and Mrs Standish have become
Adodo v Tan [2025] EWFC 184 (B)
Judgment date: 27 June 2025
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/184
HHJ Rodgers. Re-hearing following an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a final order made by District Judge Severn on 10 October 2022. On appeal, it was held there had been a misunderstanding of crucial
Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26
Judgment date: 2 July 2025
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2025/26
Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens (with whom Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agree). The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed W’s appeal, upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, and clarified application of the sharing principle