FRJ stage

Needs

AT v BT: The Return of Compensation

AT v BT: The Return of Compensation

In AT v BT [2023] EWHC 3531 Francis J considered what he described (at [4]) as ‘the proper approach of the court to the sharing principle and to the principle of compensation’ given that ‘the husband maintains that this is a pure needs case and the wife asserts that this

AH v BH [2024] EWFC 125

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2024/125 Peel J final hearing judgment in high-net-worth FR case in which the parties had entered into a pre-nuptial agreement which purported to ‘severely limit W’s financial remedy claims in her own right and the financial needs of W and the children’

The Incorporated Trustees of Great Calling Ministries Worldwide v (1) A Irabor (2) F Irabor [2024] EWHC 803 (Fam)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2024/803 Sir Jonathan Cohen. Appeal by an intervener against a final order which included discharging an interim charging order on the FMH made in the intervenor’s favour and a payment of a lump sum which would prevent the recovery of the

The Having of Children ‘Changes Everything’ – But in What Way?

The Having of Children ‘Changes Everything’ – But in What Way?

How (if at all) should future non-financial contributions yet to be made by one of the parties to a marriage or civil partnership be taken into account when calculating the quantum of periodical payments? MCA 1973 s 25(2)(f) states as follows: ‘(f) the contributions which each of the

Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2024] EWCA Civ 84

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/84.html King, Bean and Moylan LJJ. Epic saga of litigation concludes with the Court of Appeal substituting a final order made in Part III proceedings. Background On 17 May 2023 Sir Jonathan Cohen made final orders disposing of W’s

The Husband v The Wife [2024] EWFC 64 (B)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2024/64 HHJ Willans. Needs case involving impressive parties with strong and opposing views over what has happened and what constitutes a fair outcome. The parties had agreed: (i) a PSO in respect of H’s pension; (ii) that there should be a