Bradley v Bradley 2008 Court of Appeal
- The Court of Appeal overturned a stay of an Order for the payment of a lump sum which had been made against Bradley’s client. The Court of Appeal found that there was no jurisdiction to make an Order for Security for Costs “by the back door”
VB v JP [2008] EWCH 112 (Fam)
- This was the first case to be reported since McFarlane where the court was required to say whether the compensation principles established by McFarlane applied to an ex-wife applying for an upward variation of her maintenance award. We were able to persuade the court that the principles did apply and as a result our client had her maintenance order doubled.
Boyle v Secretary of State [2008]
- A history of criticism for non-co-operation against our client, running back over 12 years was finally laid to rest when the members Court of Appeal read our client’s history. Their Lordships then clarified that the penalty assessment should be removed where he had produced the information needed
L v L and H (a firm) [2007] 2FLR 171
- The wife and her lawyers had seized our client’s laptop computer without his permission in an attempt to obtain information. We were successful in preventing the wife and her legal team from accessing the information on the laptop and having it returned.
B v B [2007] EWHC 2472 (Fam)
- We successfully acted for a husband whose ex-wife was trying to set aside a consent order because of an increase in the value of the family home following the settlement. This case confirmed the important principle of finality of consent orders save for material non-disclosure.
Re G (Children) [2006] 2 FLR 629
- The Court of Appeal had decided that the daughters of a biological mother should reside with her former lesbian partner (who was not their biological parent). We helped the mother overturn that decision in the House of Lords so that they remained living with her.
Smith v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another [2006] All ER (D) 161
- The successful end point for a woman who had pursued her former husband for child support, this case established how the incomes from a wide range of businesses should be dealt with for child support. It became harder for earners to hide behind the figures in their published accounts
McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186
- Confirming that Mrs McFarlane should be entitled to share in the high-earnings of her former husband, when they had been created by the partnership of their marriage, this case shattered the glass-ceiling that had previously existed for maintenance claims (and also created a new benchmark for child-maintenance awards).
Kimber v Brookman solicitors [2004] 2 FLR 221
- the case established that, in matrimonial finance cases, the court had a duty to inquire into the parties’ means. In a case where a party was in breach of his duty to disclose and was in breach of orders of the court he forfeited his right to legal professional privilege – the court ordered production of the solicitors file.
Re P (Parental Dispute: Judicial Determination [2003] 1 FLR 286
- The case established that it was the function of the court to resolve a parental disagreement (in this case schooling) and that the court could not abdicate responsibility by giving one parent a veto.
Re X and Y (Leave to remove from Jurisdiction: No order principle) 2001 2FLR 118
- We were successful in assisting a mother of two small children to return to live in her country of origin with the children although their father wished them to remain in England.
Al Habtoor v Fotheringham [2001] EWCA Civ 256
- The case dealt with the issue of whether the English court was able to make orders concerning an English child resident in another country. It established that a new habitual residence could be acquired even where a move to a foreign country was for a short or trial period and that the court should be slow to make orders that conflict with pre-existing orders in any friendly foreign state.
Le Foe v Le Foe and Woolwich plc [2001] 2FLR 970
- We were successful in rescuing a fair share of the resources for our client, despite the pincer claims of his wife and mortgagee. This remains one of the leading cases on beneficial interests in property and how these should be viewed when mortgagees intervene to recover their security
| 