‘The importance of the ‘clean break’ has been reemphasised in recent years with greater emphasis being placed on MCA 1973 s 25A (and s 28(1A)), particularly in the judgments of Mostyn J.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 8th November 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘The Autumn Budget 2024 (“the Budget”) saw history being made as Rachel Reeves, who became our first female Chancellor of the Exchequer, set out arguably the biggest tax changes for a generation, set to raise taxes by £41bn by 2029/30 and said to be part of the Government’s plan to revitalise Britain. In this article, we will summarise the key reforms of the Budget, highlighting those which may be of particular relevance to financial remedy practitioners and their clients.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 1st November 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘Dozens of divorce applications were wrongly approved due to a computer error, the high court has heard.’
The Guardian, 31st October 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘If ever there were any doubts as to the importance of the FDR appointment and the parties’ attendance at one, then Mr Justice Peel has unequivocally put those doubts to rest in his judgment in GH v GH [2024] EWFC 272, published on 3 October 2024. The court’s ongoing focus on assisting parties to resolve financial remedy proceedings in a timely and proportionate manner means that FDRs (including private FDRs) are, perhaps unsurprisingly, still receiving significant praise and judicial support.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 21st October 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘No Special Favours: Litigants in Person and the Financial Remedies Court’
Financial Remedies Journal, 23rd October 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘My subject today is revolution. Don’t worry. I am not advocating a take-over of the country by Tommy Robinson or Piers Corbyn. I am talking about the fundamental transformation of financial remedy work since I undertook my first ever case on 19 July 1983 in the Edmonton County Court, just over 41 years ago.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 16th October 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘There can be real loss and prejudice in some divorce cases if the final divorce order, previously the decree absolute, is granted before the final financial settlement and its implementation in circumstances when the paying party then dies. Automatic entitlement to pensions, the primary circumstance, but also insurance policies, beneficial interest in trusts and similar are then not available as the applicant is now divorced, financial remedy claims are no longer available after death and there might have to be a difficult and separate civil claim.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 7th October 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘Resolution’s Report on Domestic Abuse in Financial Remedy Proceedings: An Overview of the Key Findings and Recommendations.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 8th October 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘Grandparents have become increasingly involved in their grandchildren’s day to day lives over the last few decades, providing love, support, child care and a sounding board for frazzled parents. A number of studies have highlighted the benefit to children of having positive relationships with their grandparents and the importance of these connections is celebrated each year on Grandparents’ Day. However, as family dynamics shift over time, particularly following a divorce or bereavement, grandparent/grandchild relationships are often impacted.’
Kingsley Napley Family Law Blog, 10th October 2024
Source: www.kingsleynapley.co.uk
‘Financial remedies practitioners are well-accustomed to advising parties in straitened financial circumstances. Often the central question is how to stretch the available resources to ensure both parties have a roof over their heads. However, when one or both parties find themselves in serious financial difficulty, a less familiar issue may arise: the interplay between the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973).
In this article, the authors will comment on the recent case of Gudmundsson v Lin [2024] EWHC 1576 (Fam) to explain how bankruptcy proceedings can alter the computational landscape of a case and, at times, undermine the intentions of the Financial Remedies Court.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 1st October 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘Why is it that lawyers think that the principles underpinning financial remedies are clear, and yet the public are often perplexed? The issue is one of communication, or rather translating the law into plain English.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 20th September 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘They Think It’s All Over… It Is Not! Express Declarations, Subsequent Agreements and the Decision in Re Cynberg.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 9th September 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘Financial Remedies – Applicable legal principles under MCA 1973.’
33 Bedford Row, 10th September 2024
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘Any litigation involving your own family is undoubtedly very stressful. Add to the mix a long drawn out expensive process and the stress factors are compounded even more.’
Becket Chambers, 30th August 2024
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘Financial Remedies – Non Matrimonial Property.’
33 Bedford Row, 2nd September 2024
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘Since the two seminal decisions of the House of Lords, first in White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and then in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186, introduced practitioners to the potentially crucial distinction (in sharing cases, at least) between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, and the decision of Nicholas Mostyn QC (as he then was) in GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality) [2003] 2 FLR 108 introduced into orthodoxy the practice of treating seamless pre-marital cohabitation as, or at least as if it were, part of a marriage, the question of when parties commenced cohabitation has assumed an important significance (although, unlike the ES1, Form E still does not require them to set out when they say that was), alongside the question of when they separated.’
Financial Remedies Journal, 22nd August 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘In BN v MA [2013] EWHC 4250 (Fam) Mostyn J observed:
“[24] … In Granatino v Radmacher the Supreme Court analysed very closely the nature of nuptial agreements. They pointed out that nuptial agreements come in numerous shapes and forms and can be entered into at any point before, during or after a marriage …
[26] The Supreme Court has modified the test for the treatment of these nuptial agreements, as expressed in Edgar and Xydhias and, indeed, in MacLeod, so as to provide one single test applicable to all nuptial agreements, which is this, “The court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement”. That now is the test to be applied in every case where a nuptial agreement falls for consideration.” ‘
Financial Remedies Journal, 16th August 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
‘Financial Remedies – Short Marriage.’
33 Bedford Row, 7th August 2024
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘This post discusses the current approach to domestic abuse in financial remedy proceedings. For those short on time and unable to read the post in full, the key conclusions you need to be aware of are; the recent decision of Mr. Justice Peel in N v J [2024] EWFC 184 is important and says if you want the court to consider domestic abuse as part of your case you will need to follow the procedure in Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130; it also says that domestic abuse will only potentially be taken into account by the court if it is exceptional and has had a negative financial impact on the alleged victim.’
Transparency Project, 8th August 2024
Source: transparencyproject.org.uk
‘In Radmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino [2010] 2 FLR 1900 at [81] Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said that of the three strands identified in White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and Miller/McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186 it was needs and compensation which could most readily render it unfair to hold the parties to an ante-nuptial agreement. In relation to the former this was because:
“[t]he parties are unlikely to have intended that their ante-nuptial agreement should result, in the event of the marriage breaking up, in one partner being left in a predicament of real need, while the other enjoys a sufficiency or more, and such a result is likely to render it unfair to hold the parties to their agreement.” But what is the meaning of “predicament of real need”?’
Financial Remedies Journal, 16th July 2024
Source: financialremediesjournal.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024