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.
Valuations
IN v CH [2025] EWFC 265 (08 July 2025)
W’s application for financial remedies. Trowell J was tasked with dividing the remaining assets of a couple who had previously enjoyed immense wealth that was significantly diminished due to the consequences of war.
BY v GC [2025] EWFC 226
Mr Nicholas Allen KC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge). In Financial Remedy proceedings, Nicholas Allen KC refused Daniels v Walker application to rely on expert evidence that valued the main business interests at less than the Single Joint Expert (SJE).
Culligan v Culligan (No 3) (Terms of Order) [2025] EWFC 186
MacDonald J. The court determined the terms of an order following a final hearing in January, which saw an equal division of the matrimonial assets following a 40-year marriage, including Wells sharing.
TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam)
Mr Justin Warshaw KC sitting as a deputy High Court judge. Final hearing in a financial remedies matter, dealing with issues of interim provision, non-disclosure, conduct and post-separation accrual.
Adverse Inferences: The Court’s Approach to Valuing Overseas Assets Without Disclosure
This article will consider the court’s approach to adverse inferences in cases where there has been no, minimal or seriously deficient disclosure from one party, particularly in relation to overseas assets. Valuing overseas properties and businesses can be particularly challenging where there has been no engagement and/or no
Two Heads, Better than One? BR v BR, in Light of BR v BR (No 2) and Vince v Vince
In his judgment in BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11, [2024] 2 FLR 217, Peel J emphasised at [17](i) that ‘[w]herever possible’ the instruction of a single joint expert (SJE) is the ‘default position’ and at [17](ii) that a ‘high degree of justification’ is required for two