TY v XA [2024] EWFC 96
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2024/96?query=TY+XA
Mr Justice Moor
Related
KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims) [2026] EWFC 73 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/73?query=EWFC+73+%28B%29
Carl Brendan Hammond v Herrington Carmichael LLP [2026] EWHC 701 (SCCO)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/scco/2026/701?query=%5B2026%5D+EWHC+701+%28SCCO%29
Anne Morag Fotheringhame v Antony David Nelson [2026] EWHC 632 (Ch)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2026/632
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring
Related
KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims) [2026] EWFC 73 (B)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/73?query=EWFC+73+%28B%29
Carl Brendan Hammond v Herrington Carmichael LLP [2026] EWHC 701 (SCCO)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/scco/2026/701?query=%5B2026%5D+EWHC+701+%28SCCO%29
Anne Morag Fotheringhame v Antony David Nelson [2026] EWHC 632 (Ch)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2026/632
Latest
Portals: Bringing It All Together
Tips and tricks on using the digital court portals from a member of the stakeholder group for the profession, including how to avoid the double login, when to denote documents as confidential, and how to prompt a response from the court.
FRJ – ‘Well, He (or She) Didn’t Ask!’ – the Impact of Non-Disclosure When the Question Isn’t Asked
Is it a shield to non-disclosure by one party during financial remedy proceedings if the other party could (and perhaps should) have asked? The duty on parties to give full and frank financial disclosure is not merely a private obligation between them; it is a duty to the court.
The Reluctant Pension Credit Member
[2026] 1 FRJ 39. In the case of AP v TP [2025] EWFC 190 (B) a financial remedy order was made by consent, following an FDR, which included a pension sharing order in W’s favour. Difficulties began when W failed to provide the necessary information to permit the pension share to be implemented.