Journal

Costs

Costs

Most readers of this publication will be familiar with the expressions of horror over costs in financial remedy proceedings from the High Court bench in recent years, culminating in a few memorable adjectives (‘nihilistic’,[[1]] ‘apocalyptic’[[2]]). In Xanthopoulos, Mostyn J described ‘exploding with indignation’ at the rate and scale

‘What’s In a Name?’ Anonymising Financial Remedy Judgments

‘What’s In a Name?’ Anonymising Financial Remedy Judgments

This article addresses four questions posed by Sir Nicholas Mostyn: (1) How engrained is the practice of anonymisation in financial remedy (FR) judgments? (2) What rationale was given in those cases for naming the parties or anonymisation? (3) What is my view of the legal issues in relation to anonymity?

A Crib Sheet for those New to Financial Remedies Practice

A Crib Sheet for those New to Financial Remedies Practice

By way of an extract from Polly Morgan’s Family Law (OUP, 2nd edn, 2024), we present an aide memoire of the relevant principles and practicalities for the new financial remedies practitioner. Summary of the principles and practicalities (1) Consider ‘all the circumstances of the case’: s 25(1). (2)

Securing Property Situated Outside the Jurisdiction of England and Wales for the Benefit of Minor Children

Securing Property Situated Outside the Jurisdiction of England and Wales for the Benefit of Minor Children

Readers of the Financial Remedies Journal will, of course, be familiar with the operation of s 23(1)(d)–(f) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (financial provision for children in connection with divorce/dissolution of civil partnerships), as well as s 24 of that same Act insofar as it makes available

Maintenance for a Disabled Adult Child: A Case of Legal Blogging

Maintenance for a Disabled Adult Child: A Case of Legal Blogging

Between August 2022 and June 2023 I observed, via Teams, a number of hearings in a single case heard by HHJ Shelton in Leeds and now reported as AB v CD [2022] EWFC 197 and 198; and [2023] EWFC 103. The case concerned cross-applications for variation of a 2012 maintenance