Latest Updates

Introduction:

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 article please click here.

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…

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.

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.

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).

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).