FRJ stage

Andrew Day

Andrew Day

Andrew Day is a barrister at St Ives Chambers, Birmingham, and a Recorder, arbitrator and private FDR evaluator.

read more

They Think It’s All Over… It Is Not! Express Declarations, Subsequent Agreements and the Decision in Re Cynberg

They Think It’s All Over… It Is Not! Express Declarations, Subsequent Agreements and the Decision in Re Cynberg

In Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, at [49], Baroness Hale said that ‘[n]o-one now doubts that … an express declaration [of trust] is conclusive unless varied by subsequent agreement or affected by proprietary estoppel’. It might reasonably be observed that the authority cited for that proposition, the decision of

Cohabitation and Separation: When Does the Clock Start and Stop?

Cohabitation and Separation: When Does the Clock Start and Stop?

Since the two seminal decisions of the House of Lords, first in White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and then in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186, introduced practitioners to the potentially crucial distinction (in sharing cases, at least) between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, and

‘Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns’ – Can a Change in the Law Be a Barder Event?

‘Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns’ – Can a Change in the Law Be a Barder Event?

Can a change in domestic law, resulting from judicial tergiversation, ever satisfy the Barder test? The answer to this question depends, in part, on how widely or narrowly the Barder test is interpreted. In recent years it has often been interpreted narrowly – particularly by Mostyn J in DB v DLJ

D(R) Day: Today’s Changes to FPR Parts 3 and 28

D(R) Day: Today’s Changes to FPR Parts 3 and 28

FPR Part 3 has historically been underused. This is strange given that: 1. FPR 1.4(1) provides that the court ‘must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases’; and 2. FPR 1.4(2)(f) states that active case management includes ‘encouraging the parties to use a non-court

Conduct and Its Consequences: Goddard-Watts and TK v LK

Conduct and Its Consequences: Goddard-Watts and TK v LK

In a timely and thought-provoking article published on the FRJ website in October last year (‘Is It Time to Consign the “Gasp” Factor to the History Books?’), Olivia Piercy and Anita Mehta considered the decisions of Sir Jonathan Cohen in Traharne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27, Her Honour Judge Reardon

Financial Dispute Revolution? The Family Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2023

Financial Dispute Revolution? The Family Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2023

There was a time when an unwritten rule seemed to provide that a marriage could only be described as long once the parties had celebrated their china anniversary and entered a third decade together, but times change, and so eventually do some rules. On any view, however, 20 years is

Fresh Carrot, Bigger Stick: Forthcoming Rule Changes and the ‘Encouragement’ of NCDR

Fresh Carrot, Bigger Stick: Forthcoming Rule Changes and the ‘Encouragement’ of NCDR

FPR Part 3 has historically been underused. This is strange given that FPR 1.4 provides that the court ‘must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases’ and FPR 1.4(2)(f) states that active case management includes ‘encouraging the parties to use a non-court dispute resolution’, or