OO v QQ [2025] EWFC 310 (B)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/310.html
Needs
Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055
King, Moylan and Snowden LJJ. The Court of Appeal allowed the husband’s appeal against the final order made by Francis J on 15 March 2024, emphasising the importance of full and frank disclosure in pre-nuptial agreements when agreed by the parties.
PZ v ZD (Financial Remedies: Needs: Adverse Inferences: Taking of Evidence from Outside the Jurisdiction) [2025] EWFC 171 (B)
Judgment date: 20 March 2025
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/171
Judgment by DDJ G Evans in a modest asset case involving significant non-disclosure and the taking of evidence from a respondent in a non-Hague Convention jurisdiction (here, Pakistan).
Background
The parties had a medium-length marriage of
MNV v CNV [2025] EWFC 176 (B)
Judgment date: 19 June 2025
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/176
DDJ Bradshaw. Drastic change in personal circumstances results in add-back in small money case.
Overview
DDJ Bradshaw considered arguments relating to the add-back of dissipated assets in a modest FR case. Shortly after separation the husband
GH v IH [2025] EWFC 120 (B)
Judgment date: 10 April 2025
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/120
District Judge Hatvany. Final hearing on enforcement and variation of 2012 financial remedy order. The primary issue to be determined was the enforcement and variation of a joint lives periodical payments order made in 2012. The
ST v AR: The Origin of Assets and the Assessment of Needs
As Mostyn J observed in Clarke v Clarke [2023] 2 FLR 1 at [36], Peel J’s oft-quoted summary of the law in WC v HC (Financial Remedies Agreements) (Rev 1) [2022] 2 FLR 1110 at [21] is an ‘impeccable synopsis of the jurisprudence applicable in financial remedy cases [which]
CH v TH [2024] EWFC 135 (B)
Judgment date: 26 April 2024
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2024/135
HHJ Willans. Final hearing in FR proceedings involving parties with widely conflicting views as to the resources available. The outcome was a modest departure from equality with a 53% split in W’s favour.
Background
W