Sale of Property

Interested Third Parties Opposing an Order for Sale

Interested Third Parties Opposing an Order for Sale

A v N [2025] EWFC 371 (B) sets out non-exhaustive factors to consider when a third party with a beneficial interest in the family home opposes an order for sale, and considers how the court will balance the needs of the third party and the spouses.

X v Y [2025] EWFC 144 (B)

DJ Stone. A (misconstrued) application to appeal a final financial order out of time, ultimately determined as an application to vary pursuant to Thwaite jurisdiction.

The Costs of ‘Costs of Sale’

The Costs of ‘Costs of Sale’

As part of the computation stage of financial remedy proceedings great care is taken to ascertain the accurate net value of the family home and other property owned by the parties or in which they have an interest.

Grijns v Grijns & Ors [2025] EWHC 1413 (Ch)

Master Bowles (sitting in retirement). Failed proprietary estoppel claim by son who lived in his parents’ Chelsea property for over 20 years.

TA v SB [2025] EWFC 61 (B)

Judgment date: 05 March 2025 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/61 HHJ Muzaffer. The only question the court was concerned with was what should happen to the jointly-owned FMH. However, this case illustrates the difficulties arising when one party lacks capacity to litigate and is dependent on

What to Do Where One Spouse Will Not Co-operate with a Court-Ordered Sale?

What to Do Where One Spouse Will Not Co-operate with a Court-Ordered Sale?

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2024/407 The recently reported case of WZ v HZ [2024] EWFC 407 (B) (1 May 2024) provides guidance on how to manage the common occurrence of one spouse holding out in the family home despite an order for sale. Gathering the evidence

IN v CH [2024] EWFC 233

Judgment date: 08 July 2024 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2024/233 Mr Stephen Trowell KC. The husband and wife made competing applications for an order for sale in respect of the matrimonial home and a yacht. The court found that the wife did not have a beneficial interest