Disclosure: Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

Toby Hales analyses whether the Supreme Court decisions in Gohil and Sharland will finally cheat-proof family justice ‘While every divorcing or separating couple should be encouraged to settle their finances by agreement, the jurisdiction to make such an agreement into an order lies with the court and the court alone.’ There were more than a …
This post is only available to members.

Ilott v Mitson & ors [2014] EWHC 542 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | May 2014 #139

This was an appeal against quantum in an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The deceased was called Melita Jackson and the appellant was her estranged daughter.

The proceedings had a protracted history. There was an initial hearing of the claim in front of District Judge Million on 7 August 2007. He found as facts that the appellant and her husband and family lived modestly in a housing association house. They were heavily dependent on state benefits. The appellant did not work and her husbands income was small. The family’s ...

Financial Provision: Second chances

Virginia Sherbourne and Vanessa Mitchell look at the lessons to be learnt regarding variation of maintenance from the Court of Appeal decision in N v N ‘The factors applied to the award of periodical payments in general will apply in considering any application to vary the position and the court will strive to be fair …
This post is only available to members.

Appeals: An appealing consolidation?

Ellie Foster reflects on the harmonisation of the rules relating to appeals and potential pitfalls under the FPR 2010 ‘The general principle of the FPR 2010, certainly as far as appeals are concerned, is to harmonise the new rules with the CPR 1998 and to provide for one appeal only, although exceptionally there may be …
This post is only available to members.

Damages: Surveillance evidence

Simon Emslie investigates how insurers can strike back ‘The insurers took the view that the picture presented by these videos was so different from that presented at trial that the only inference that could be drawn was that the claimant had made a far better recovery than he had claimed and that he had deliberately …
This post is only available to members.