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 74

December 9, 2018

Ideals in a less than ideal system

The Central Family Court has now issued a directive that family professionals will be expected to draw up non financial orders, if the case is concluded by 1pm, by 4.30 pm that day and, if concluded later that day, then by the start of business the next working day.

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 73

December 9, 2018

Current Position of the Prenuptial Agreement (‘PNA’)

In recent instructions to draft a number of prenuptial agreements, I have provided to the solicitor a Summary of the present developed position concerning the approach to prenuptial agreements. I have been told the Summary was found useful and so I have included the same now as a Flyer to at least provide a quick aide memoire of the up to date law on this subject.

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 72

December 9, 2018

For Discretion read Uncertainty – Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38

The Supreme Court’s anticipated decision in the variation of periodical payments case of Mills v Mills was a bit of a damp squid despite commentators predicting a major shift was imminent in regard to maintenance entitlement periods and the basis of future variation of such orders. However, hidden within the Court’s determination are likely to be some future problems for the profession’s ability to advise clients of the Court’s likely approach and outcome to variation applications.

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 71

December 9, 2018

Is an earning capacity a marital asset subject to the sharing principle?

Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727

Introduction:

The higher courts have over recent years repeatedly emphasised the need for consistency in the application of the established principles of financial remedy distribution on divorce as suggested by both the appellate decisions of White and Miller/McFarlane. Such consistency of principle application undoubtedly assists settlement and results as the Court of Appeal acknowledged in less than 10% of all such financial cases going to a contested hearing.

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 70

March 10, 2018

The Court’s Responsibility to Heed its own Overriding Objective

CH v WH [2017] EWHC 2379: Mostyn J.

Introduction:

The Family court has a long tradition of not being constrained by the limits of the specific application placed before it. A master of the matrimonial law, Lord Justice Ormrod in Ward v Ward & Greene (1980) 1 AER 176 observed, at the end of an appeal in which it had been suggested that the court could not under the (then un-amended) s 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 make an order for sale without there also being a pro form summons before the Court under s 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, as follows:-

‘Before leaving the appeal finally, however, there is one point with which I want to deal…

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 69

March 10, 2018

Seeking Part 25 Permission (Experts Instruction – Financial Remedy Cases) – Is a Formal Application required?

Introduction:

1. Practitioners will be aware that recently the local Family Court in Liverpool has emphasised that formal applications will normally be needed in all cases where an expert report is to be sought. It will be recalled that my previous Flyer 35 (http://www.ashleymurraychambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Flyer-35.pdf) dealt with the introduction of this, as then, new procedure for the instruction of Court experts in financial remedy cases.

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 68

March 10, 2018

Barristers Fees and Transparency – the Bell Tolls

Recent Reports on Transparency at the Bar:

The Bar Standards Boards recently published its research findings (July 2017) in relation to the satisfaction of individuals, who had recently used the services of barristers in family law matters. The outcome was broadly positive.

However, 83% of those surveyed believed that barristers charge higher fees than other legal providers and more than half those sampled indicated that they were not confident that they had the appropriate information to make an informed decision on who to approach for advice on a family law matter.

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 67

March 10, 2018

Tobias v Tobias [2017] EWFC 46: Mostyn J – guidance on applications for freezing orders, ex party orders and use of the out of hours judge

  1. W was in the FMH and H in a care home.  H applied for an ex party freezing order upon the FMH, which was charged in favour of commercial creditors and the Local Authority for unpaid council tax.  H also had registered a FLA 1996 notice of home rights.
  2. H’s application was to the out-of-hours High Court judge albeit there was no emergency.  His statement supporting the application was defective in failing to list the secured commercial debts, as was the application and there was also no divorce petition issued.

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 66

March 10, 2018

Sharp return to uncertainty in divorce finance distribution – Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408.

1. This Flyer is longer than most – for good reason – it contains substantive new law.

2. The ONS – 2013 showed 34% of marriages had ended in divorce by the 20th marriage anniversary. Hence, the risk to married couples of undergoing the trauma and cost of divorce remains significant. Resolution’s survey in 2014 found 28% of the separated adults taking part had taken out additional borrowing as a direct result of their relationship break-up (http://www.resolution.rg.uk/site_content _files/files/reso).

To view the full flyer please click here.

Family Flyer 65

March 10, 2018

Short Marriage Assessment of Quotidian Needs – FF v KF [2017] EWHC 1093 (Fam) (Mostyn J)

Whilst few of us will have used the adjective ‘quotidian’ this year or, let’s face it, in our lifetime – its’ use within Mostyn J’s recent judgment on appeal immediately in front of ‘needs’ does, at least, make us first check our web dictionaries as to its meaning and then, once hooked, to actually read a highly economic dispatch by His Lordship of the issues in a case which occupied the Manchester Money Judge, HHJ Wallwork, five days of hearing – mostly, according to Mostyn J, in addressing the ‘completely irrelevant’ subject of the level of the parties’ marital acquest, which W claimed was £3m when H had already in an open offer proposed more than half of that amount anyway and when both parties’ open positions ‘were predicated on an assessment of the wife’s needs’ (para 7).

To view the full flyer please click here.

Older News