FRJ stage

Periodical Payments

Re CB (Financial Remedies: Antisuit Injunction) [2025] EWHC 427 (Fam)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/427 HHJ Moradifar. Application by the husband for an anti-suit injunction to prevent the wife from pursuing, participating or otherwise continuing any applications for periodical payments for the children of the family or any other applications relating to their marriage in the

GH v H [2024] EWHC 2869 (Fam)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2024/2869 Mr Simon Colton KC sitting as a deputy High Court judge. Summary On W’s application, an interim changing order was made final in respect of sums to be paid to a third party/child of the marriage, with interest granted

WJB v HJM [2024] EWFC 116 (B)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/116.html District Judge Ashworth. This was an application by W for a Hadkinson order preventing H from pursuing his application to vary an order for periodical payments made in 2017 (‘the order’). The order provided that H pay W £3,

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

Quantifying Periodical Payments by Reference to the Needs Principle: Surveying the Wood Not the Trees

Quantifying Periodical Payments by Reference to the Needs Principle: Surveying the Wood Not the Trees

Tensions between competing propositions in financial remedy cases are not unusual. For example in Re P (Child: Financial Provision) [2003] 2 FLR 865 Thorpe LJ at [48] referred in the context of CA 1989 Schedule 1 to: ‘an inevitable tension between the two propositions, both correct in law, first that