Family Law Update
Glossary of Terms
Useful Links
<< 1 2 >>
Family Law Update November - Alice Quirk comments on two recent cases

Re: W (Minors) [2016] EWHC 2226 (Fam) – Read full judgment here
Re: B (Litigant in Person: timely service of documents) [2016] EWHC 2365 (Fam) Read full judgment here

Re: W (Minors) [2016] EWHC 2226 (Fam) Judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in which he makes a number of orders, the most significant of which relates to an ex...[CONT]


This case concerns a 25 year marriage in which the wife’s Financial Remedy Application was ultimately determined by HHJ Brasse in August 2014, following separation in 2013.  The parties were at the time both aged 50 and are the parents of three children aged between 17 and 20.

This was a traditional marriage in the sense that the husband continued to work after the birth of the children while the wife became the homemaker and primary carer, with only occasional modestly p...[CONT]

Robertson v Robertson [2016] EWHC 613 (Fam) – A case note by Natalie Sutherland

This case was a “big money” case where the total assets amounted to £219million. Mr Justice Holman delivered his judgment after the parties failed to reach a settlement, having been unable to bridge the gap of £77million.


The background facts

Mr and Mrs Robertson were married in December 2004, having cohabited since 2002. They have two children aged eight and seven. The parties separated at the end of 2013 and there...[CONT]

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 – Two Recent Cases which demonstrate why a foreign divorce does not have to be the last say in terms of final financial orders – A case note by Alex Hulbert

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA) allows, in certain situations, the English courts to make financial orders following a foreign divorce.

Before the court can consider an application under Part III, permission must to be obtained. S.13 (1) states that “the court shall not grant leave unless it considers that there is substantial ground for the making of an application for such an order.”

The factors set out at S.16 (2) of t...[CONT]

Covert Recording of Children – a case note by Alice Grainger on M v F (Covert recording of children) [2016] EWFC 29: A lesson in misjudged evidence.

“It is almost always likely to be wrong for a recording device to be placed on a child for the purpose of gathering evidence in family proceedings, whether or not the child is aware of its presence.”  The opening sentence of Mr Justice Peter Jackson’s Judgment could, almost, be all he needed to write on this matter. 

Instead, he continues by discussing the consequences of a parent taking the step of recording their child’s conversations wit...[CONT]

Arbitral award challenge judgment supports ethos of family arbitration scheme – case note on DB v DLJ [[2016] EWHC 324 (Fam) by Laura Geraghty

On 24 February 2016 Mr Justice Mostyn provided his Judgment in favour of the husband on his application following a decision (“award”) made in arbitration: DB v DLJ [[2016] EWHC 324 (Fam).

The husband’s application was for the wife to show cause why the award made by Mr Gavin Smith (the “arbitrator”) in July 2015 should not be made an order of the Court.  The wife resisted the husb...[CONT]

Supreme Court - Case Comment In the matter of J (a child)

Writing for the UK Supreme Court Blog, LMP’s Alexander Hulbert comments on In the matter of J (a child) [2015] UKSC 70.

Read Case Comment

Read Judgment

Gohil and Sharland Case Studies on the UK Supreme Court Blog

The landmark decision of the Supreme Court last month, on the conjoined appeals of Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60 and Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, held that both wives were entitled to have their financial orders set aside and the relevant proceedings re-opened ends.  The ruling sends out a clear message that failure to disclose in financial proceedings will not be tolerated. Writing for the UK Supreme Court Blog, LMP’s Natalie Sutherland looks at Gohil v Gohil; Alice Grainger...[CONT]

Court Fees – Set to rise by a third

The Government has announced rises in court fees which will come into force later this year. Spouses seeking a divorce will, from that time, be paying £550; £140 more than now.

Ministers had considered raising the cost of issuing divorce proceedings by as much as 80 per cent to £750, but after a widely opposed consultation paper in January, reduced it to a third after 'carefully considering' concerns.

The increase in divorce costs is just one...[CONT]

Privacy & Cookie Policy |
| Equality & Diversity Policy
Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (No. 282412)
© 2017 Levison Meltzer Pigott.
Artworks by Kathryn Jackson & Toby Muligan | Design: Schneider-Associates