Z (No 2) [2021] EWFC 72
Judgment date: 16 August 2021
Related
MH v FD [2025] EWFC 390
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2025/390.html
Re A Child (Schedule 1, 1989 Act; Variation) [2025] EWHC 1254 (Fam)
McKendrick J. Final Hearing concerning cross-Schedule 1 and specific issue applications brought by both parties. The High Court dismissed all but the respondent father’s application to release his intermediary from undertakings.
JT v RL & Anor [2025] EWHC 1335
Keehan J. Application by mother to enforce a contract in relation to a property purchased for her and the parties’ child.
Read the journal
Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 3 | Winter
Related
MH v FD [2025] EWFC 390
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2025/390.html
Re A Child (Schedule 1, 1989 Act; Variation) [2025] EWHC 1254 (Fam)
McKendrick J. Final Hearing concerning cross-Schedule 1 and specific issue applications brought by both parties. The High Court dismissed all but the respondent father’s application to release his intermediary from undertakings.
JT v RL & Anor [2025] EWHC 1335
Keehan J. Application by mother to enforce a contract in relation to a property purchased for her and the parties’ child.
Latest
National Iranian Oil Company v Retirement, Savings and Welfare Fund of Oil Industry Workers v Crescent Gas Corporation Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 211 and Its Implications for TLATA Cases
The Court of Appeal confirms that a declaration of trust respecting land or any interest therein requires the personal signature of the settlor, not a third party on their behalf. This has implications where it is alleged a trust of land has arisen by virtue of an express declaration of trust.
Bundle of Joy: New Practice Direction on Bundles, Position Statements etc., Effective 2 March 2026
Practice Guidance Update No. 6 of 2025 contains amendments to a range of existing FPR PDs, including a comprehensive re-writing of PD 27A, which started life as the ‘Bundles Direction’.
Interested Third Parties Opposing an Order for Sale
A v N [2025] EWFC 371 (B) sets out non-exhaustive factors to consider when a third party with a beneficial interest in the family home opposes an order for sale, and considers how the court will balance the needs of the third party and the spouses.