FRJ stage

Nicholas Allen KC

Nicholas Allen KC

Barrister and Joint Head of Chambers at 29 Bedford Row (London). Door Tenant at St. Ives (Birmingham). IFLA arbitrator and PFDR/ENE tribunal. Appointe...

read more

Post-Separation Accrual in CG v DL – Are We Back to an Arbitrary Approach?

Post-Separation Accrual in CG v DL – Are We Back to an Arbitrary Approach?

Practitioners will be more than familiar with the authorities that underly the principle of non-matrimonial property. It is a judicial construct created to give effect to a ‘good reason’ to depart from the ‘equal sharing principle’ as developed through cases from White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 through to

Unilateral Assets and Short Marriages after E v L – Another White Leopard?

Unilateral Assets and Short Marriages after E v L – Another White Leopard?

It was made clear by the Court of Appeal in Miller v Miller [2005] EWCA Civ 984, [2006] 1 FLR 151 that none of the pre-White v White [2000] UKHL 54, [2000] 2 FLR 981 so-called short marriage cases[[1]] had survived the change in judicial approach that White heralded.

The Revised Standard Family Court Orders – In with the New

The Revised Standard Family Court Orders – In with the New

The standard orders project has a long history. The then President (Sir James Munby) first appointed a drafting group in 2013 under the leadership of Mostyn J to produce a comprehensive set of orders that it was intended would become mandatory in the Family Court and the Family Division. Such

Interview with Sir Mathew Thorpe

Interview with Sir Mathew Thorpe

Sir Mathew Thorpe, Barrister from 1961, in silk from 1980, Family Division Judge (1988–95), Lord Justice of Appeal (1995–2013) and Deputy Head of Family Justice and Head of International Family Justice (2005–13). Sir Mathew was interviewed at his Wiltshire home in Autumn 2022. How have you occupied

Omissions, Ambiguities and Deficiencies – Seeking Clarification of a Judge’s Reasoning

Omissions, Ambiguities and Deficiencies – Seeking Clarification of a Judge’s Reasoning

‘All judgments are capable of improvement’ observed Peter Jackson LJ in Re O (A Child: Judgment: Adequacy of Reasons) [2021] EWCA Civ 149 at [70]. As a consequence, the appropriate scope of seeking ‘clarification’ of a draft judgment – as opposed to suggesting corrections of a typographical or numerical nature or

Myerson No. 1 and FPR 9.17(2): What Can the FDR Judge Actually Do?

Myerson No. 1 and FPR 9.17(2): What Can the FDR Judge Actually Do?

There has long been disagreement over what an FDR judge can – and cannot – do where agreement has not been reached between the parties and, in particular, whether he or she can (and if so should) make directions for a final hearing. By virtue of FPR 9.17(2) the judge

‘For Reasons Which Are Not Fanciful’ – Daniels v Walker Applications in Financial Remedy Cases

‘For Reasons Which Are Not Fanciful’ – Daniels v Walker Applications in Financial Remedy Cases

More than 22 years after it was decided, there remains no reported decision in a financial remedies case in which a court has provided guidance in relation to whether or not to grant a so-called Daniels v Walker [2000] EWCA Civ 508, [2000] 1 WLR 1382 application for the instruction