X v X [2012] EWHC 538 (Fam)
Judgment date: 16 March 2012
Related
MK v SK [2026] EWFC 28
Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings with findings of non-disclosure against H. Final orders determined with reference to W's needs.
BY v GC (No 2) [2025] EWFC 397
In this seven-day final hearing of a long marriage with adult children, the computation and distribution of a variety of assets were determined by a robust analysis and application of the case law by Mr Nicholas Allen KC.
Michael v Michael (No. 3) [2025] EWFC 245
HHJ Hess, sitting as a DHCJ, addressing business valuations in a financial remedy final hearing.
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2026 Issue 1 | Spring
Related
MK v SK [2026] EWFC 28
Peel J. Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings with findings of non-disclosure against H. Final orders determined with reference to W's needs.
BY v GC (No 2) [2025] EWFC 397
In this seven-day final hearing of a long marriage with adult children, the computation and distribution of a variety of assets were determined by a robust analysis and application of the case law by Mr Nicholas Allen KC.
Michael v Michael (No. 3) [2025] EWFC 245
HHJ Hess, sitting as a DHCJ, addressing business valuations in a financial remedy final hearing.
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.