Family Law Hub

Financial Provision

Latest updates

  • To be broadcast live on Tuesday 16th June 2020, 1pm-2pm. News, 25/02/2020, members only
  • Mr Justice Cohen recently gave judgment in MB v EB (No. 2) [2019] EWHC 3676 (Fam), and sounded a cautionary note to parties in needs-based cases in financial remedy proceedings who run up unreasonably large legal costs under the (mistaken) belief that the financially stronger party will be ordered to pay them. Referring to the recent amendments to FPR 2010 Practice Direction 28A, Cohen J was firm in his judgment that it was not for the wife, in this case, to ‘bankroll this litigation’ which he found to have been unreasonably conducted by the husband. This case serves as a warning to parties who have a needs-based claim that this does not give them a so-called ‘license to litigate’, and underlines the importance of making sensible proposals in negotiations. News, 25/02/2020, free
  • Webinar to be broadcast live on Wednesday 1st April 2020. News, 03/02/2020, members only
  • The Court of Appeal recently gave judgment in XW v XH [2019] EWCA Civ 2262, an appeal by the wife (‘W’) against the financial remedy order made by Mr Justice Baker (as he then was) on 21 December 2017 (see XW v XH [2017] EWFC 76). He had ordered that W should receive capital resources which, when added to her own assets, would give her approximately £152m – a significant sum, but equal to only 29% of the parties’ combined capital resources of £530m. Judgment, 03/02/2020, free
  • A judgment dealing with the wife’s application for financial relief following a divorce. The husband started a plant hire business shortly after their relationship began. HHJ Booth's decision was that all properties in their joint names should be transferred to the husband, other than a house occupied by the wife's mother. The husband would continue to provide support for the wife until he paid her, three months hence, £2.3 million. She would then be paid £1m more after 15 months and another £1m after 27 months. The pension would be shared equally. The husband's suggestion (after circulation of the draft judgment) that this might lead to liquidation of the business did not change HHJ Booth's decision: he had presented his case as if there were no possibility of the wife receiving more than he was prepared to offer, "a bold strategy that failed". He would have to bear the consequences of running his case this way. Judgment, 28/01/2020, free

Latest know-how

Latest training

Latest sources

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item