- Everything (27)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (0)
- Case note (12)
- News (0)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (0)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (15)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- The latest stage in a protracted piece of financial remedies litigation. The matter listed had been whether a stay should be granted to the wife to allow her not to transfer certain monies from a Swiss account pursuant to the order under appeal, but in the event Lieven J was able to consider both the stay and the outstanding points on appeal. The wife argued for the husband to provide an indemnity that covered her potential liability to a firm of solicitors. Lieven J found that the risk the wife perceived could not be considered fanciful. There had been a significant change of circumstances, and it had been inequitable not to vary the order. The clean break settlement would have left her unable to recover the money needed to cover the contingent liability to which she was potentially now exposed. Judgment, 06/03/2021, free
- The father had applied for the return of the children from Ukraine, where they had been kept for ten months. Mostyn J had stayed the application, in anticipation of the Ukrainian court reinstating the father's application there. This did not happen, so the stay was lifted and the application would be heard. Directions were given, but the judge also urged the parties to explore a mediated solution to the case. Judgment, 21/06/2019, free
- A costs order had been made against Mrs Hayes. She sought a stay, because there was a question as to whether Mr Hayes, if required to do so following the conclusion of another claim, would be able to repay the money. Henry Carr J decided that it was unnecessary to grant a stay, given that Mr Hayes had undertaken not to seek enforcement until the other claim was determined, and adjourned the hearing until that had happened. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
- The wife's divorce petition had been stayed on the basis that proceedings had already begun in Italy. On appeal, the question was whether the Italian court was still seised of proceedings. Moylan LJ held that this was for the Italian court to determine, but allowed the wife's appeal to the extent that English proceedings were adjourned, rather than stayed. Baker LJ agreed. Judgment, 26/04/2019, free
- Application by the husband for a stay of divorce proceedings started by the wife in England where he wanted the proceedings to be held in Switzerland. The application was granted. Judgment, 09/07/2018, free
- The ex-wife's application for enforcement of the provisions of an order relating to maintenance was stayed according to Art 12 of the Maintenance Regulation until the Italian court had determined the question of its jurisdiction . Judgment, 10/05/2017, free
- Procedural failings by the Court of Appeal Office resulted in the setting aside of several parts of the President's order. Judgment, 09/06/2015, free
- Wife's application for a variation on a stay of enforcement of a periodical payments order by means of a judgment summons under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869. The variation was granted and the appeal hearing brought forward by 3 months. Judgment, 15/12/2014, free
- The questions that required determination were a) whether Mostyn J was right to stay the Children Act proceedings brought by the mother under Art 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (BIIR) and b) whether he erred in ordering that mother take the child to Italy on or before 18 December 2013. Appeal against the stay was dismissed; reserved judgment as to the return to Italy. Judgment, 23/05/2014, free
- An application by the husband for an order granting permission to appeal the order of a Deputy District Judge whereby he stayed the wife's divorce proceedings but excepted from that stay her application for a Legal Services Payment Order. Mr Justice Mostyn gave permission for the appeal and allowed it, saying that by the terms of FPR 2010 rule 9.7(1) an application for an LSPO is for an interim order, just as is an application for an order for maintenance pending suit. Such an application is dependent for its existence and validity on the continuance of the main suit. If the main suit is stayed then all subsidiary ancillary applications for financial relief are stayed, and a fortiori all applications and orders for interim relief, whether for maintenance pending suit or an LSPO. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free