header-logo header-logo

17 February 2011 / Geraldine Morris
Issue: 7453 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Home & away

Geraldine Morris reflects on an EU pension divide

In Schofield v Schofield [2011] All ER (D) 26 (Feb) the Court of Appeal has emphasised the importance of judicial collaboration across state boundaries in a case in which the parties had divorced in Germany and the wife subsequently sought an order in relation to a British Army pension. This decision shows the correct approach to applications under Pt III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984) is that set out in Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] 2 FCR 1 and that the approach developed by Mostyn J in CG v IF (inter-relationship: Pt III Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and Lugano Convention)[2010] All ER (D) 25 (Jun)is not correct.

In Schofield the husband and wife were British and German respectively. They had married in Germany when the husband had been serving in the British Army. There were three children to the marriage. The parties divorced by German decree in May 2007. During, and prior to the marriage, the husband accrued a British Army

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll