‘Jo Carr-West and Lara Barton, partners at Hunters Law LLP, explain recent recommendations that would assist divorcing couples in minimising and managing the CGT implications of separating their financial affairs.’
Family Law Week, 10th July 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Haley v Haley [2020] EWCA Civ 1369 (case report at [2021] Fam Law 37) settled an important issue for family arbitration. It established that contested awards in the area of financial remedy could be reviewed by the Family Court by a process akin to an appeal against decisions made in court proceedings, and on the same basis as such an appeal: that the decision is “wrong”. This article assesses the significance of the decision by looking at its background and context. It sets out our understanding of the procedural implications. Finally, it identifies remaining areas of uncertainty and offers some views as to how they might be resolved.’
Family Law, 17th June 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially conduct arguments contrary to s25(g) through the back door by making “negative contribution” arguments, and it also highlights the importance of ensuring that you adduce and apply for the most appropriate and necessary evidence in advance of a hearing. Simply arguing that an updated pension report is needed, following an appeal hearing, on the basis that the pension sharing order made would not reflect the judge’s intentions as the CE figures would be significantly out of date, is insufficient and misconceived.’
Family Law, 17th June 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Not for the first time, the reported cases are dominated by parties with limited connection with England and Wales, or indeed with the quotidian financial experience of most of those involved in litigation before our courts. There is a handful of cases which address the impact of the pandemic but, as Judge Kloss observed in one, the fact that there has not been a ‘tsunami’ of Barder applications suggests that the exceptionality condition for such applications is being recognised.’
St John's Chambers, 8th June 2021
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
‘It seems there has been a never-ending line of costs commentary flowing through the reported decisions from financial remedy courts as of late. There is a clear trend of encouraging the making of costs orders; something that was far from the norm of no costs orders in contested financial remedy proceedings a few years ago. The reasons for this encouragement are many and possibly speculative; perhaps a by-product of the cuts to Legal Aid and therefore the lack of access to legal representation inevitably leading to extensive, unnecessary, and unmeritorious litigation, perhaps a consequence of the continued backlog in the family courts, perhaps an ancillary product of the widening parameters of judicial discretion and uncertainty?’
Family Law, 3rd June 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Almost all clients want their finances to be resolved without ongoing financial connections so they can each go their separate ways without continuing financial ties i.e., they want to have a “clean break”.’
Family Law, 20th May 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Roxane Reiser, barrister of 1 Hare Court, analyses the impact of Brexit on the recognition and enforcement of English financial orders in Switzerland.’
Family Law Week, 19th May 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or in dissolution settlements. Since the business valuation may be the most significant component of the total matrimonial assets, it needs to be ascertained with care, normally with expert assistance, in order to achieve a fair division of family wealth on divorce.’
Family Law, 6th May 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Joseph Rainer and Thomas Haggie, barristers of Queen Elizabeth Building, consider third-party assets and their bearing on the court’s assessment of resources in financial remedy cases.’
Family Law Week, 28th April 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Nichola Bright, Senior Associate at Myerson, explains some of the difficulties inherent in divorces involving agricultural assets.’
Family Law Week, 22nd April 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Non-court-based digital dispute resolution rules designed for novel technology such as crypto-assets, smart contracts, and blockchain applications have been published today.’
Litigation Futures, 22nd April 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘For the matrimonial finance and private client lawyer, crypto-assets can form a major part of a client’s estate and we are seeing them with increasing frequency. It is vital that we can identify, value and understand them, and advise on their implications for clients, for others interested in client assets, and to assist the court, if necessary.’
Pump Court Chambers, 19th March 2021
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘Jo Carr-West, partner with Hunters, considers the implications of Mr Justice Mostyn’s recent judgment in AZ v FM.’
Family Law Week, 16th March 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The final account is normally a wrap-up of the contractor’s valid claims for extra payment. It’s particularly helpful if claims were not submitted or assessed as works progressed. So, what happens if the contract doesn’t have a final account procedure but there are claims outstanding once the works are finished? Can a final account procedure be implied under section 110(3) of the Construction Act 1996?’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 8th March 2021
‘Few would have thought back on 1 March 2020 that we would, some 12 months later, be facing the first birthday of the strictest restrictions on personal freedoms in living memory. As we approach the anniversary of the first lockdown on 23 March 2020, it seems appropriate that we reconsider one of key questions of family lawyers back in Spring 2020, that of whether the pandemic was likely to satisfy the principles set down in the 1987 case of Barder v Barder [1987] 2 FLR 480. Unprecedented times, there is no doubt, but unprecedented enough to constitute a Barder event?’
Family Law, 12th March 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Helen Brander, barrister of Pump Court Chambers, considers the current treatment by the courts and taxation authorities of crypto-assets.’
Family Law week, 3rd March 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements. They mistakenly believe that the concept of a “common law” husband and wife applies to them namely that they will automatically have financial claims against each other simply because they live together. The reality is far from this. Cohabitants do not have the same financial protection and security on the breakdown of their relationship as is afforded to married couples/those in civil partnerships.’
Family Law, 26th February 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Richard Kershaw, partner at Hunters Law LLP, considers the implications of Mr Justice Cohen’s judgment in FRB v DRC (No 3).’
Family Law Week, 25th February 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Naomi Shelton, Associate, Mills & Reeve LLP considers the important news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during December 2020.’
Family Law Week, 21st January 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The brief facts of the matter are that the parties cohabited and were married for a total of 11 years. They had two children, aged 8 and 10. When they met both the Husband (H) and the Wife (W) were working as solicitors with H an associate and W a trainee although W became an associate on qualifying in 2001. They started a relationship in 2002/3 and in that year, H became an equity partner. By 2019 he earned net of tax just short of £1m per annum. In 2006 W became a managing associate, and in 2007 cohabitation started. Later that year W left the firm to be an in-house lawyer at a bank (on the promise she could work part time if she had children). In 2010 she was made a director, although after her maternity leave she found she was not permitted to work part time in the legal department, and took a part time role in the business team. In 2016 she was made redundant, and she did not work after that.’
Becket Chambers, 2nd November 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024