header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 August 2017 / Stephen Gold
Issue: 7757 / Categories: Features , Civil way
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 4 August 2017

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Petitioners to be truthful; Chinese Tiger judgment; & getting rid of the judge

AT THE FAMILY COALFACE

The Family Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2017 (SI 2017/741) come into force on 7 August 2017.

Truth development There’s good reason for a FPR 17 statement of truth (SoT) and it has nothing to do with condemning the LiP to ponder what the hell it is. Proceedings for contempt may be brought against a person who makes a false statement in a document which is verified by a SoT without an honest belief in its contents (r 17.6). Curiously, a SoT has not been required to back up the lies, exaggerations and honesty (as the case may be) in a matrimonial or civil partnership petition or answer although the subsequent supporting statement on the application for a decree has required one. That changes for a petition or answer filed on or after 7 August 2017 although these latest amendment rules perform a summersault by providing that if the petition or answer are filed before 4 September

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll