Ubbi and Ubbi v Ubbi [2018] EWHC 1396 (Ch)
Judgment date: 27 July 2018
Related
Armstrong v Armstrong & Anor (Re Remedy) [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch)
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC sitting as a High Court judge. Judgment considering the appropriate remedy for a claimant who had proved his proprietary estoppel claim and his alternative claim for entitlement under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 Act.
Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam)
Williams J. Judgment to determine reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the spouse and son of the deceased following limited provision for them in the Will and mismanagement of the Will by the executrix.
Bad Behaviour and Broken Bonds: A Comparison of Conduct in 1973 and 1975 Act Claims
Introduction
Fifty years ago, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) was enacted in an expansion of the court’s statutory powers for financial provision on death.[[1]] Two years earlier, Parliament had enacted the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to alter the court’s
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring
Related
Armstrong v Armstrong & Anor (Re Remedy) [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch)
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC sitting as a High Court judge. Judgment considering the appropriate remedy for a claimant who had proved his proprietary estoppel claim and his alternative claim for entitlement under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 Act.
Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam)
Williams J. Judgment to determine reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the spouse and son of the deceased following limited provision for them in the Will and mismanagement of the Will by the executrix.
Bad Behaviour and Broken Bonds: A Comparison of Conduct in 1973 and 1975 Act Claims
Introduction
Fifty years ago, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) was enacted in an expansion of the court’s statutory powers for financial provision on death.[[1]] Two years earlier, Parliament had enacted the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to alter the court’s
Latest
Cross-examination in Financial Remedy Claims
[2026] 2 FRJ 88. Cross-examination can have a material impact on the court’s findings of fact and determination of issues. This article is written for the occasional cross-examiner, as an aide mémoire of the rules, as a guide to doing the job well.
A Fairer End? Gaps in the Government’s Nuptial Agreement Proposals
On 5 June 2026, the Government published A Fairer End to Relationships, proposing comprehensive reform of the financial consequences of both divorce and separation for unmarried couples. This piece focuses on the Government’s plan to introduce binding qualifying nuptial agreements (QNAs).
50 Years on from Martin v Martin 1976 – Are Add-backs Fit for Purpose?
[2026] 2 FRJ 94. Add-backs were a useful mechanism to prevent one party’s unilateral dissipation of assets which unfairly prejudiced the non-dissipating spouse’s share. But something has gone wrong when the outcomes deviate too far from what the average person considers fair.