Latest issue
Latest blog posts
-
Multiplied Propagation
Between 30 September 2023 and 1 April 2024, 24 financial remedy judgments which were not mainly about the maintenance of children (and therefore not protected by s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960) were placed on Bailii. None of these was governed by the Financial Remedy Pilot, but only one was published without anonymisation.
- Blog
- Transparency
!08/04/2024 10:51
-
Single and Joint: Peel J Discusses Expert Evidence in BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11
In BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11, Peel J took the opportunity, in his role as head of the FRC, to ‘do a written judgment as one or two points of principle arise’. Specifically: the use of single joint experts in financial remedy proceedings. This is an important decision informing family lawyers how cases should be conducted.
- Blog
- SJE
- Single Joint Experts
!03/04/2024 10:25
-
Quantifying Periodical Payments by Reference to the Needs Principle: Surveying the Wood Not the Trees
Tensions between competing propositions in financial remedy cases are not unusual. Is there also tension when determining the quantum of the applicant’s budget?
- Blog
- Periodical Payments
- Needs
!28/03/2024 11:43
-
AS v RS and Part III Applications
Legal and academic commentary since Potanina has focused on how the decision is likely to give rise to many more applications to set aside leave. What then, of the costs consequences for the unsuccessful applicant who now finds themselves either (i) being listed on notice on an inter-partes basis so the court can determine the question of leave having had the benefit of hearing from both parties, or (ii) having obtained leave ex parte, finds themselves having to defend the court’s decision to grant permission without hearing from the respondent when that respondent inevitably applies to set aside the grant of leave?
- Blog
- Costs
- Part III
!22/03/2024 16:13
-
Fabricated Judicial Decisions and ‘Hallucinations’ – a Salutary Tale on the Use of AI
The Information Commissioner’s Office defines Artificial Intelligence (AI) as ‘an umbrella term for a range of algorithm-based technologies that solve complex tasks by carrying out functions that previously required human thinking’. There can be no doubt that the use of AI within the legal market is growing rapidly.
- Blog
- AI
!21/03/2024 05:54
Latest cases
-
D v D [2024] EWFC 7612 March 2024
HHJ Booth, sitting as a judge of the High Court: 25:75 division in favour of H following breakdown of second marriage and H’s substantial assets. Court considered W’s needs should be generously interpreted to overcome lack of SJE evidence as to W’s ill health. Needs would include W’s outstanding costs as summarily assessed by the court.
- Cases
- Interest
- Costs
- Spousal Maintenance (Quantum)
- Experts
- Housing Need
- Duxbury Capitalisation
- Matrimonial and Non-Matrimonial Property
-
AS v RS [2023] EWFC 283 (B)8 July 2023
District Judge Troy. Application by W for leave to bring a claim pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
- Cases
- Overseas Divorce and the 1984 Act
- Part III
- Foreign Assets
-
TK v LK [2024] EWFC 712 April 2024
Enormously helpful review of Sch 1 authorities re (i) the jurisdiction to make a Schedule 1 award after a clean break in divorce proceedings, (ii) the relevance of parental conduct in Schedule 1 proceedings, (iii) dependence and the reversion of capital and (iv) costs.
- Cases
- Conduct
- Child Maintenance
- Case Management
- Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications
- Costs
-
A Mother v A Father (Re Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989) [2024] EWFC 6319 February 2024
HHJ Vincent. Schedule 1 matter determined in light of the child’s needs and the strict remit of Schedule 1, notwithstanding the significant disparity between the parents’ respective economic positions and standards of living.
- Cases
- Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications
- Housing Need
- School Fees
- Child Support
- Standard Of Living
-
Collardeau v Fuchs & Anor [2024] EWHC 642 (Fam)21 March 2024
Knowles J. Costs in relation to (a) dismissal of W’s contempt application against H and the owner of a company that provided management services to H and W and (b) withdrawal by H of his application to debar W’s solicitor from acting for her.
- Cases
- Costs
- Conduct
- Committal Applications and Judgment Summonses