Cases Publicity and Confidentiality Delay Open in Wyatt v Vince [2016] EWHC 1368 (Fam) Judgment date: 10 June 2016https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/1368.html Related Rt. Hon. The Countess Karen Anne Spencer v Rt. Hon. Ninth Earl Spencer, Charles Edward Maurice Spencer [2025] EWFC 431 Peel J. Appeal by W for further details of an arbitration award to be disclosed to the associated KBD proceedings and to ‘any persons’. Peel J permitted minimal further disclosure in order to provide the King’s Bench court with full context but emphasised the confidential nature of arbitration. LIN v PAR [2025] EWFC 401 Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The couple's 2002 draft consent order had not been sealed by the court, but the parties had acted upon it with the belief that it had been formalised. Peel J determined that it constituted a Xydhias agreement. Silberschmidt v Richards [2025] EWHC 2841 (Fam) Poole J. Husband’s appeal against setting aside of final consent order for fraudulent non-disclosure dismissed; wife’s delay not determinative. Read the journal Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring Open in Related Rt. Hon. The Countess Karen Anne Spencer v Rt. Hon. Ninth Earl Spencer, Charles Edward Maurice Spencer [2025] EWFC 431 Peel J. Appeal by W for further details of an arbitration award to be disclosed to the associated KBD proceedings and to ‘any persons’. Peel J permitted minimal further disclosure in order to provide the King’s Bench court with full context but emphasised the confidential nature of arbitration. LIN v PAR [2025] EWFC 401 Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The couple's 2002 draft consent order had not been sealed by the court, but the parties had acted upon it with the belief that it had been formalised. Peel J determined that it constituted a Xydhias agreement. Silberschmidt v Richards [2025] EWHC 2841 (Fam) Poole J. Husband’s appeal against setting aside of final consent order for fraudulent non-disclosure dismissed; wife’s delay not determinative. Latest How are family lawyers really approaching legal research and technology? Class Legal is reviewing its products, resources, and customer behaviour to better understand what practitioners need. Interview with Richard Sax On 11 February 2026 there was a celebratory lunch with the past recipients of Resolution’s John Cornwell Lifetime Achievement Award, organised by David Emmerson, who here interviews Richard Sax. The Curious Case of CA 1989 Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3) Paragraph 1 of CA 1989 Schedule 1 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief against parents’. Paragraph 2 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief for persons over eighteen’. As recent cases have demonstrated this structure causes complications. is curated by The Leaders In Family Law Books & Software EXPLORE OUR PRODUCTS
Rt. Hon. The Countess Karen Anne Spencer v Rt. Hon. Ninth Earl Spencer, Charles Edward Maurice Spencer [2025] EWFC 431 Peel J. Appeal by W for further details of an arbitration award to be disclosed to the associated KBD proceedings and to ‘any persons’. Peel J permitted minimal further disclosure in order to provide the King’s Bench court with full context but emphasised the confidential nature of arbitration.
LIN v PAR [2025] EWFC 401 Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The couple's 2002 draft consent order had not been sealed by the court, but the parties had acted upon it with the belief that it had been formalised. Peel J determined that it constituted a Xydhias agreement.
Silberschmidt v Richards [2025] EWHC 2841 (Fam) Poole J. Husband’s appeal against setting aside of final consent order for fraudulent non-disclosure dismissed; wife’s delay not determinative.
Rt. Hon. The Countess Karen Anne Spencer v Rt. Hon. Ninth Earl Spencer, Charles Edward Maurice Spencer [2025] EWFC 431 Peel J. Appeal by W for further details of an arbitration award to be disclosed to the associated KBD proceedings and to ‘any persons’. Peel J permitted minimal further disclosure in order to provide the King’s Bench court with full context but emphasised the confidential nature of arbitration.
LIN v PAR [2025] EWFC 401 Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The couple's 2002 draft consent order had not been sealed by the court, but the parties had acted upon it with the belief that it had been formalised. Peel J determined that it constituted a Xydhias agreement.
Silberschmidt v Richards [2025] EWHC 2841 (Fam) Poole J. Husband’s appeal against setting aside of final consent order for fraudulent non-disclosure dismissed; wife’s delay not determinative.
How are family lawyers really approaching legal research and technology? Class Legal is reviewing its products, resources, and customer behaviour to better understand what practitioners need.
Interview with Richard Sax On 11 February 2026 there was a celebratory lunch with the past recipients of Resolution’s John Cornwell Lifetime Achievement Award, organised by David Emmerson, who here interviews Richard Sax.
The Curious Case of CA 1989 Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3) Paragraph 1 of CA 1989 Schedule 1 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief against parents’. Paragraph 2 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief for persons over eighteen’. As recent cases have demonstrated this structure causes complications.