header-logo header-logo

06 September 2007
Issue: 7287 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

FAMILY LAW

North v North [2007] EWCA Civ 760, [2007] All ER (D) 386 (Jul)

Once within the territory of discretion, the court’s overarching objective is a fair result. The order must be fair both to the applicant in need and to the
respondent who must pay.

In any application under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 31(variation and discharge of orders for financial relief), the  applicant’s needs are likely to be the dominant factor. But it does not follow that the respondent is inevitably responsible financially for any established needs.

He is not an insurer against all hazards nor, when fairness is the measure, is he necessarily liable for needs created by the applicant’s financial  mismanagement, extravagance or irresponsibility (per Lord Justice Thorpe at para 32).

Issue: 7287 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll