Latest Flyers

Ashley has over the last 7 years been producing at regular intervals a complimentary Flyer to his solicitors and the local judiciary in relation to new cases relating to financial relief after divorce and below there will be found a complete archive of the same.

Family Flyer 64

June 19, 2017

Equity of Exoneration – The Modern Application – analysis of Armstrong v Onyearu & Another [2017] EWCA Civ 258

  1. Once I mention Trustee in Bankruptcy – I can anticipate, like ITVs ‘Take me Out’, many family practitioners’ lights going out. But as Paddy McGuiness might say (apologies in advance) – let the ratio see the decidendi! .
  2. Yes this case was an appeal in respect of a Trustee in Bankruptcy’s claim that the W’s interest in the family home was subject to a secured loan, which had been used for H’s business

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 63

June 19, 2017

Variation of Executory Orders

The Court of Appeal in the case of Bezeliansky v Bezelianskaya [2016] EWCA Civ 76, has recently reviewed the extent of the Court’s Thwaite v Thwaite (1980) power to vary the terms of any final order made, including those by consent.

Facts:

The Court was dealing with an appeal in respect of a consent order made by Holman J in 2013 upon the parties’ respective financial claims following their divorce.

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 62

January 17, 2017

Pre-Nuptials – Quality, Clarity, Practice and Cost

It is suggested that there should be some concern over the direction pre-nuptial work in practice is taking, the widely differing quality of drafting experience and the ever rising costs being faced by the client in the process.

Click here to read more.

Family Flyer 61

January 17, 2017

 

As family lawyers we are all familiar with the anxieties of clients over mounting costs in a divorce financial claim.  The days when a client expected to write a blank cheque for the privilege of their legal advisor to represent them have long gone – and frankly – good riddance.

Click here to read more.

Family Flyer 60

January 17, 2017

A summary of ‘Guidance on Financial Needs on Divorce’ (June 2016) published by the Family Justice Council Financial Needs Working Group.

Click here to read more.

Family Flyer 59

January 17, 2017

The Debate on Evidential Burden in Judgment Summons Hearings

In Flyer 55 Judgment Summons – An Inadequate Remedy and a Defaulter’s Charter – analysis of Prest v Prest [2015] EWCA 714.  I set out the analusis of the Court of Appeal’s decision (McFarlane LJ) in the case of Prest v Prest [2016] 1 FLR 773 dealing with in particular, the required procedure to be followed upon a judgment summons committal hearing.

Click here to read more.

Family Flyer 58

January 17, 2017

An analysis if W V H (No 2)(Contempt, contents of application notice) [2015] EWHC 2436 (Fam)

Whilst the committal hearing is also reported, it is the report, as above, dealing with Parker J’s consideration of the procedural requirements of committal applications and the powers of the court to remedy defects, which is of the most interest to practitioners.

Click here to read more.

Family Flyer Issue 57

December 20, 2015

Over recent weeks I have been requested on a number of occasions to attempt to summarise the principles to be derived from the conjoined appeal decisions of the Supreme Court in Sharland and Gohil. Accordingly, I have tabulated such a summary in the hope it will be of assistance generally.

Click here to read more.

Family Flyer Issue 56

December 6, 2015

Wicks v Wicks [1998] 1 FLR 470 and its determination that there was no interim power of asset sale for divorcing parties pending a final hearing has been a source of injustice, mainly for wives, for almost two decades.

Please click here to read more.

Family Flyer Issue 55

December 6, 2015

Since the decision of Mubarak [2001] 1 FLR 698, the inadequacies of the Judgment Summons route to enforcement of a ‘money’ order has been well known to the Profession. The Judgment Summons process at that time made no reference to the criminal standard of proof, required individuals to incriminate themselves, placed the burden of proof on the person facing committal and confused the separate approaches required when undertaking a means enquiry and committal proceedings.

Please click here to read more.

Older News