Watch | The new FPR provisions on NCDR. Fresh carrot, Bigger stick (but no mandation)
Watch the recording of HH Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB; Nicholas Allen KC, 29 Bedford Row; Martin Kingerley KC, 36 group; Rhys Taylor, 36 Group; Graeme Fraser, BBS Law & Karen Barham, Moore Barlow: 'The new FPR provisions on NCDR. Fresh carrot, Bigger stick (but no mandation)'.
Related
Non Court Dispute Resolution – What Difference Does a Year (and a Bit) Make?
Important revisions to both FPR Part 3 and Part 28 came into effect on 29 April 2024 when the material parts of the Family Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023 came into force.
The financial remedies pre-application protocol (annexed to PD 9A) was rewritten by the Financial Procedure Rule Committee
Justice that Heals: Lessons from Singapore’s Family Justice System
In the early 19th century, Britain was importing tea from China and financing the trade by illegally exporting opium (grown in British-controlled India) to China. The British East India Company required a port along the India–China maritime route to support this ‘commerce’ and to counter growing Dutch influence in
DR Corner: Thinking Outside the Box – Two Different Forms of NCDR
On a number of occasions when sitting, Stephen heard Dr Freda Gardner, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, say in evidence as an expert witness: ‘the issues in this family should never have developed to a point where this litigation became necessary’. Then, one day, they met outside the court environment, and he
Related
Non Court Dispute Resolution – What Difference Does a Year (and a Bit) Make?
Important revisions to both FPR Part 3 and Part 28 came into effect on 29 April 2024 when the material parts of the Family Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023 came into force.
The financial remedies pre-application protocol (annexed to PD 9A) was rewritten by the Financial Procedure Rule Committee
Justice that Heals: Lessons from Singapore’s Family Justice System
In the early 19th century, Britain was importing tea from China and financing the trade by illegally exporting opium (grown in British-controlled India) to China. The British East India Company required a port along the India–China maritime route to support this ‘commerce’ and to counter growing Dutch influence in
DR Corner: Thinking Outside the Box – Two Different Forms of NCDR
On a number of occasions when sitting, Stephen heard Dr Freda Gardner, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, say in evidence as an expert witness: ‘the issues in this family should never have developed to a point where this litigation became necessary’. Then, one day, they met outside the court environment, and he
Latest
Final Reflections on Standish: Was It All Worthwhile?
If asked, Mr Standish may say that three rounds of litigation, with another to follow, were worth it – Mrs Standish, perhaps not. But for lawyers, with many questions left unanswered, and a feeling that the opportunity to settle the law on matrimonialisation with clarity and certainty has passed us by,
OS v DT and Post-Separation Income: Fairness Trumps Inflexibility
In ‘Post-Separation Income: Has Rossi Survived Waggott and Standish?’ (5 February 2025), Nicholas Allen KC considered the potential impact of Waggott v Waggott [2018] 2 FLR 406 on the argument that income (or the assets or capital generated therefrom) earned in or referable to the first 12 months post-separation should
A Priceless Inheritance: Family Law, Open Justice and the Rule of Law
“The traditional law, that English justice must be administered openly in the face of all men, is an almost priceless inheritance” Earl Loreburn in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417
Sir Nicholas Mostyn presented on this topic at the Bar Council’s law reform lecture 2025, on 2 July 2025.