Lump sum orders under Pt III of MFPA 1984 – Family Law

‘Family analysis: A husband’s appeal succeeded against a lump sum order made in favour of the wife by an English court after the couple agreed a financial consent order in Russian divorce proceedings. Jenny Duggan, associate at Stewarts, examines issues that arose in Zimina v Zimin.’

Full Story

Family Law, 27th October 2017

Source: www.familylaw.co.uk

Children Public Law Update – Family Law Week

‘John Tughan QC of 4 Paper Buildings reviews recent judgments of particular importance to all practitioners in public children law.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 28th May 2015

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Split Hearings in Care Proceedings: a Thing of the Past? – Family Law Week

Posted February 18th, 2014 in appeals, care orders, family courts, news, split hearings by sally

‘Michael Jones, barrister of 15 Winckley Square Chambers, reviews the recent Court of Appeal judgment in S (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 25 and considers its likely consequences.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 18th February 2014

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Beasley (by Cadell Beasley as litigation friend) v Alexander – WLR Daily

Beasley (by Cadell Beasley as litigation friend) v Alexander [2012] EWHC 2715 (QB); [2012] WLR (D) 272

“CPR r 36.13(2) did not permit the court to be told the position as to a Part 36 offer and consequently go on to deal with the question of costs at the conclusion of the first part of a split trial.”

WLR Daily, 9th October 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In reL and another (Children) (Preliminary fact finding hearing: Judge’s power to reverse conclusions on findings of fact) – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2012 in care orders, families, judgments, law reports, split hearings by sally

In reL and another (Children) (Preliminary fact finding hearing: Judge’s power to reverse conclusions on findings of fact) [2012] EWCA Civ 984; [2012] WLR (D) 240

“In respect of split hearings in family proceedings, the judge did not have a general licence to amend his judgment as to past fact at any time before he had pronounced his judgment as to the future. In the interim period between judgment on a preliminary issue trial and the hearing of the second trial, a judge was precluded from taking account of developments relating to the findings on the preliminary issue trial unless they were substantial, if not fundamental. Where a judge was invited to expand his findings or reasons in further support of the stated conclusions in his judgment, he could not reverse his previously stated conclusion.”

WLR Daily, 18th July 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re P (Children: Split hearings) – Times Law Reports

Posted January 16th, 2008 in children, law reports, split hearings by sally

In re P (Children: Split hearings)

Court of Appeal

“Care was required when addressing, in a split hearing, the threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989.”

The Times, 16th January 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.