Latest Updates
Family Law Journal [2021] March 331
April 22, 2021
The impact of FPR 2010 Part 4.6 on Financial Remedy Applications for Permission to Appeal Out of Time
The process of an application to proceed out of time – has long been presented in family cases as a review of “all the circumstances”, not least, the merits of the substantive application succeeding. MG v AG now coalescences the CPR and FPR approaches when dealing with such applications in financial remedy cases.
To read the full article please click here.
Family Flyer 93
April 22, 2021
Private FDR Remote Hearings – Reduced Fixed Fee Update
A. Reduced Covid-19 FDR Fee:
Substantive family finance cases are, as with all other cases across the Court Divisions, in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic now significantly delayed and are likely to continue to be so well into the 2022. Unfortunately, this will have serious family, financial and emotional consequences for divorcing couples about to be or already engaged in divorce proceedings.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 92
April 22, 2021
The “Matrimonialisation” of Non-Matrimonial Assets
WX v HX and others (Treatment of Matrimonial and Non-Matrimonial Property) (2021) EWHC 241 – Roberts J.
Introduction:
Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Secretary of Defence in interview about a film documentary entitled “The Unknown Known – the Life and Times of Donald Rumsfeld” – himself became confused about what was meant by his own use of the phrase he had famously employed at a news briefing in 2002 concerning the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 91
April 22, 2021
MPS applications – Broad Assessment Only
Rattan v Kuwad [2021] EWCA Civ 1
Introduction:
This case of Rattan v Kuwad [2021] EWCA Civ 1 is the first Court of Appeal review of maintenance pending suit in over a decade (see Moore v Moore (2009) EWCA Civ 1427), albeit the decision serves to re-emphasise what hopefully all family law practitioners will already know – a knowledge which appears to have been lost to the Circuit Judge (“CJ”) involved and a good example why the FRC is a welcome replacement of the old judicial ticketed system when dealing with appeals from financial remedy first instance decisions.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 90
April 22, 2021
The Impact of FPR 2010 Part 4.6 on Financial Remedy Applications for Permission to Appeal Out of Time
MG v AG (Appeal Out of Time) (2020) EWFC B49
Introduction: The process of an application to proceed out of time – has long been presented in family cases as a review of “all the circumstances”, not least, the merits of the substantive application succeeding. MG v AG now coalescences the CPR and FPR approaches when dealing with such applications in financial remedy cases.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 89
April 22, 2021
Set Aside Powers – There’s Nothing New Under the Sun
CB v EB – Mostyn J
Introduction:
The formal process required to initiate the Court’s jurisdiction to set aside matrimonial final orders has long been the subject of contentious debate and over complication matched only by an extended discussion at all levels of our judicial system as to the extent of the power itself. In this recent Judgment in CB v EB (2020) EWFC 22 by Mostyn J there has been a determined effort to finalise the position.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 88
April 22, 2021
Non-Matrimonial Pension Accrual in Low Value Cases.
KM v CV (Pension Apportionment: Needs) [2020] EWFC B22
Introduction:
High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in family financial remedy matters rarely deal with the low income /low asset cases, which most other Courts have to wrestle with on a daily basis. In addition, in many cases involving pensions before the Courts some form of argument is still invariably presented suggesting that where there has been any non-matrimonial accrued pension contribution the same should lead to an apportionment of the pension being undertaken before any division occurs for pension sharing purposes.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 87
April 22, 2021
Litigation Misconduct Results in Order Below Guilty Spouse’s “Reasonable Needs”
– an analysis of the Court of Appeal decision in Rothchild v De Souza [2020] EWCA Civ 1215
Introduction
The appeal by the Husband against the financial remedy order of Cohen J was dismissed. The costs of the proceedings (described as being conducted on a “massive scale” and “most destructive”) by the end of the Court of Appeal and a lengthy first instance hearing amounted to over £1m with the Court of Appeal agreeing with W’s counsel’ submission, as already found by Cohen J., that but for H’s litigation misconduct those costs would have been a fraction of that amount.
To view the full flyer please click here.