header-logo header-logo

14 November 2025 / Ellie Hampson-Jones , Carla Ditz
Issue: 8139 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce , Child law
printer mail-detail

Family law brief: November 2025

235680
In their latest update, Ellie Hampson-Jones & Carla Ditz consider three recently reported cases & some important developments in family law
  • In the latest instalment in Potanin v Potanina, the judgment makes clear that there is no statutory requirement to establish a ‘substantial’ connection to England and Wales.
  • Helliwell v Entwistle has shown the importance of full and frank disclosure when negotiating pre-nuptial agreements.
  • BC v BC demonstrates the need to respect confidentiality in the FDR and private FDR process.
  • Meanwhile, the Family Justice Council has published guidance on the use of covert recordings in family law proceedings, and there has been a useful evaluation of the Pathfinder court pilot.

Potanina v Potanin (No 2) [2025] EWCA Civ 1136

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the latest instalment of the long-running case of Potanin v Potanina. The case concerns Russian multi-billionaire Vladimir Potanin (pictured) and his wife Natalia Potanina, who were married for 30 years before divorcing

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll