Financial provision: Dealing with reality

Helen Cort considers the circumstances in which an order may be set aside on the basis of non-disclosure and the crucial issue of the burden of proof On an application to set aside an order on the basis of fraud, the court has to stand in the shoes of the court which made the order …
This post is only available to members.

Adult children: End of the road

Anna Shadbolt and Philippa Davies reflect on the limits of financial provision for adult children The decision in Siddiqui could be viewed as a simple restatement of the boundaries of the current law, without going any further, but it could also constitute a useful clarification of the existing law in the event of claims by …
This post is only available to members.

Schedule 1: Viewed in the round

Heather Souter reflects on the usefulness of the millionaire’s defence in Sch 1 proceedings in the context of the statutory criteria While Re Z confirms that the millionaire’s defence may be raised and relied upon in Sch 1 proceedings, it is important to note that such a defence does not give blanket protection when it …
This post is only available to members.

Schedule 1: All in the past?

Rebecca Stone analyses legal costs orders involving both historic and future costs The judgment in Re Z highlights the importance of solicitors applying for legal funding as early as possible, considering what credit, if any, they are prepared to extend to a client, and making it clear to clients from the outset they will cease …
This post is only available to members.

Schedule 1: The rich are different?

Schedule 1 claims are often associated with significant wealth, but Vikkie Chetcuti suggests that they may provide useful remedies in more modest cases Given the range of orders available to applicants, it is not only the former partners of the very wealthy who can make use of Schedule 1. According to the Office for National …
This post is only available to members.

Schedule 1: Outside the lines?

Jemma Pollock examines the decision in DN v UD and asks whether the boundaries for when provision may be made for a child age 18 or over have been pushed too far The court concluded that if an application under Sch 1 is made before the child is 18, the court acquires jurisdiction and retains …
This post is only available to members.

Schedule 1: Relocation, relocation

Shantel Burbridge analyses the court’s approach to a Schedule 1 case in which the applicant sought a replacement property for the benefit of the children ‘The court found that the replacement of one property by another does not amount to a new settlement of property, rather it is simply the substitution of one property for …
This post is only available to members.