Latest Flyers
Family Flyer 72
December 9, 2018
For Discretion read Uncertainty – Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38
The Supreme Court’s anticipated decision in the variation of periodical payments case of Mills v Mills was a bit of a damp squid despite commentators predicting a major shift was imminent in regard to maintenance entitlement periods and the basis of future variation of such orders. However, hidden within the Court’s determination are likely to be some future problems for the profession’s ability to advise clients of the Court’s likely approach and outcome to variation applications.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 71
December 9, 2018
Is an earning capacity a marital asset subject to the sharing principle?
Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727
Introduction:
The higher courts have over recent years repeatedly emphasised the need for consistency in the application of the established principles of financial remedy distribution on divorce as suggested by both the appellate decisions of White and Miller/McFarlane. Such consistency of principle application undoubtedly assists settlement and results as the Court of Appeal acknowledged in less than 10% of all such financial cases going to a contested hearing.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 70
March 10, 2018
The Court’s Responsibility to Heed its own Overriding Objective
CH v WH [2017] EWHC 2379: Mostyn J.
Introduction:
The Family court has a long tradition of not being constrained by the limits of the specific application placed before it. A master of the matrimonial law, Lord Justice Ormrod in Ward v Ward & Greene (1980) 1 AER 176 observed, at the end of an appeal in which it had been suggested that the court could not under the (then un-amended) s 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 make an order for sale without there also being a pro form summons before the Court under s 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, as follows:-
‘Before leaving the appeal finally, however, there is one point with which I want to deal…
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 69
March 10, 2018
Seeking Part 25 Permission (Experts Instruction – Financial Remedy Cases) – Is a Formal Application required?
Introduction:
1. Practitioners will be aware that recently the local Family Court in Liverpool has emphasised that formal applications will normally be needed in all cases where an expert report is to be sought. It will be recalled that my previous Flyer 35 (https://ashleymurraychambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Flyer-35.pdf) dealt with the introduction of this, as then, new procedure for the instruction of Court experts in financial remedy cases.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 68
March 10, 2018
Barristers Fees and Transparency – the Bell Tolls
Recent Reports on Transparency at the Bar:
The Bar Standards Boards recently published its research findings (July 2017) in relation to the satisfaction of individuals, who had recently used the services of barristers in family law matters. The outcome was broadly positive.
However, 83% of those surveyed believed that barristers charge higher fees than other legal providers and more than half those sampled indicated that they were not confident that they had the appropriate information to make an informed decision on who to approach for advice on a family law matter.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 67
March 10, 2018
Tobias v Tobias [2017] EWFC 46: Mostyn J – guidance on applications for freezing orders, ex party orders and use of the out of hours judge
- W was in the FMH and H in a care home. H applied for an ex party freezing order upon the FMH, which was charged in favour of commercial creditors and the Local Authority for unpaid council tax. H also had registered a FLA 1996 notice of home rights.
- H’s application was to the out-of-hours High Court judge albeit there was no emergency. His statement supporting the application was defective in failing to list the secured commercial debts, as was the application and there was also no divorce petition issued.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 66
March 10, 2018
A Sharp return to uncertainty in divorce finance distribution – Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408.
1. This Flyer is longer than most – for good reason – it contains substantive new law.
2. The ONS – 2013 showed 34% of marriages had ended in divorce by the 20th marriage anniversary. Hence, the risk to married couples of undergoing the trauma and cost of divorce remains significant. Resolution’s survey in 2014 found 28% of the separated adults taking part had taken out additional borrowing as a direct result of their relationship break-up (http://www.resolution.rg.uk/site_content _files/files/reso).
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 65
March 10, 2018
Short Marriage Assessment of Quotidian Needs – FF v KF [2017] EWHC 1093 (Fam) (Mostyn J)
Whilst few of us will have used the adjective ‘quotidian’ this year or, let’s face it, in our lifetime – its’ use within Mostyn J’s recent judgment on appeal immediately in front of ‘needs’ does, at least, make us first check our web dictionaries as to its meaning and then, once hooked, to actually read a highly economic dispatch by His Lordship of the issues in a case which occupied the Manchester Money Judge, HHJ Wallwork, five days of hearing – mostly, according to Mostyn J, in addressing the ‘completely irrelevant’ subject of the level of the parties’ marital acquest, which W claimed was £3m when H had already in an open offer proposed more than half of that amount anyway and when both parties’ open positions ‘were predicated on an assessment of the wife’s needs’ (para 7).
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 64
June 19, 2017
Equity of Exoneration – The Modern Application – analysis of Armstrong v Onyearu & Another [2017] EWCA Civ 258
- Once I mention Trustee in Bankruptcy – I can anticipate, like ITVs ‘Take me Out’, many family practitioners’ lights going out. But as Paddy McGuiness might say (apologies in advance) – let the ratio see the decidendi! .
- Yes this case was an appeal in respect of a Trustee in Bankruptcy’s claim that the W’s interest in the family home was subject to a secured loan, which had been used for H’s business
To view the full flyer please click here.
Family Flyer 63
June 19, 2017
Variation of Executory Orders
The Court of Appeal in the case of Bezeliansky v Bezelianskaya [2016] EWCA Civ 76, has recently reviewed the extent of the Court’s Thwaite v Thwaite (1980) power to vary the terms of any final order made, including those by consent.
Facts:
The Court was dealing with an appeal in respect of a consent order made by Holman J in 2013 upon the parties’ respective financial claims following their divorce.
To view the full flyer please click here.
Archives
- October 2022
- April 2022
- October 2021
- April 2021
- October 2020
- March 2020
- December 2018
- March 2018
- June 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- August 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- December 2015
- September 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- September 2012
- February 2012
- September 2011
- June 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- July 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
- October 2008
- August 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- August 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007