header-logo header-logo

Form E: the forensic accountant’s role

07 November 2019 / Rakesh Kapila
Issue: 7863 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness , Divorce
printer mail-detail
Rakesh Kapila considers possible shortcomings in the financial statements submitted by the parties in matrimonial proceedings
  • Undertaking an overview of Form E.
  • Providing examples of primary inaccuracies in Form E.

Form E is the financial statement on each party’s position prepared in financial proceedings arising out of divorce or judicial separation. It can also be used as a guide to the format for voluntary financial disclosure before the issue of proceedings.

Although Form E is complex and needs to be completed with care, it is important that disproportionate costs are not incurred in its preparation. In particular, following the submission of each party’s Form E with supporting documents, significant time costs may be incurred in preparing questionnaires to be exchanged subsequently to obtain clarification and further information. This article highlights the key types of anomaly which can be identified in reviewing a client’s draft Form E or in reviewing the other party’s Form E before time is spent in reviewing the supporting documents and undertaking follow-up procedures.An overview

The

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll