Y v Z [2025] EWFC 221
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2025/221?court=ewhc%2Ffam&court=ewfc
Cusworth J
Related
Y v Z [2025] EWFC 221
Cusworth J. Case management decision allowing the wife to amend her position to formally plead conduct under s 25(2)(g).
TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam)
Mr Justin Warshaw KC sitting as a deputy High Court judge. Final hearing in a financial remedies matter, dealing with issues of interim provision, non-disclosure, conduct and post-separation accrual.
W v X [2025] EWHC 1696 (Fam)
Schedule 1 'big money' case before Mr Justin Warshaw KC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge) concerning the financial provision of C.
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 2 | Summer
Related
Y v Z [2025] EWFC 221
Cusworth J. Case management decision allowing the wife to amend her position to formally plead conduct under s 25(2)(g).
TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam)
Mr Justin Warshaw KC sitting as a deputy High Court judge. Final hearing in a financial remedies matter, dealing with issues of interim provision, non-disclosure, conduct and post-separation accrual.
W v X [2025] EWHC 1696 (Fam)
Schedule 1 'big money' case before Mr Justin Warshaw KC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge) concerning the financial provision of C.
Latest
Parliamentary Debate Reveals Government’s Latest Intentions for Financial Remedies and Cohabitation Law Reform
The Government gave a significant update on Monday 10 November 2025 in the House of Lords regarding its plans for financial remedies and cohabitation law reform. It signals a major overhaul of how the law treats relationship breakdown across all types of couples.
Promises Unkept: Unpaid Child Maintenance and the Price of Inaction
Unpaid child maintenance remains one of the most persistent and under-addressed financial injustices affecting separated families in England and Wales. The failures of the CMS destabilise the very integrity of financial provision for children post-separation.
Finality and Funding: a Further Thought on CC v UU Concerning the Availability of LSPOs for Enforcement Proceedings
In the case of CC v UU, concerning post-final order LSPOs, did Peel J fall into error? Should the judgment have been decided differently?