‘Should cohabiting couples be permitted to bring more comprehensive financial applications to court upon separation? This longstanding discussion amongst family lawyers in England continues and will continue afresh in the wake of the recent House of Commons Briefing Paper “Common law marriage” and Cohabitation published on 4 May 2021.’
Family Law, 31st August 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The parties became engaged in 2016 married in 2017 and separated in 2019. The parties disagreed over the date of cohabitation, the wife saying 2016 and the husband denying there was any cohabitation before marriage.’
Becket Chambers, 13th August 2021
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘In E v L, Mr Justice Mostyn considered an application for financial remedies following a short marriage. He concluded the fact that the marriage was childless was irrelevant to whether there should be a departure from the application of the equal sharing principle. Moreover, there was no reason to distinguish between an accrual (of assets) over a short marriage and an accrual over a longer marriage. The statutory factor of the duration of marriage was likely to be reflected in any event in that an acquest over a shorter period was likely to be less. Mostyn J also considered the approach to valuing businesses in this case where three accountants gave “hot-tub” evidence as to the value of one of the husband’s companies.’
1 GC: Family Law, 10th August 2021
Source: 1gc.com
‘The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years. However, the conundrum can be even more challenging when considering personal injury damages that one party may have received in order to meet their specific needs arising from an accident or injury.’
Family Law, 12th August 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The statutory criteria to decide what is a fair financial settlement on divorce comes from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, now almost 50 years old. In reality it derives from judge made law. This has the benefit of being responsive and able to change. It has the disadvantage that there is no public or policy input into the law or changes in the law. It has the significant difficulty that by reference to almost unfettered discretion with propensity for contradictions or nuances in the judge made law it encourages litigation and discourages early settlement. David Hodson has proposed to the Law Commission, in its request for topics for its 14th programme of reform, that there should be a review of the criteria for fair and appropriate financial settlements. This sets out his proposals for the need for reform. It is in a question-and-answer process as required by the Law Commission for any submissions. It would be very helpful to hear from other lawyers and members of the public with their opinions on whether reform is needed and, far more problematical, what that reform should be.’
Family Law, 12th August 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Joshua Viney, barrister, and Henry Pritchard, pupil barrister, both of 1 Hare Court, explore the circumstances in which it might be unfair to apply the CMS formula.’
Family Law Week, 14th July 2021
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Should cohabiting couples be permitted to bring more comprehensive financial applications to court upon separation? This longstanding discussion amongst family lawyers in England continues and will continue afresh in the wake of the recent House of Commons Briefing Paper “Common law marriage” and Cohabitation published on 4 May 2021.’
Family Law, 8th July 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2025