header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 September 2012 / Margaret Hatwood
Issue: 7528 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family , Damages , Personal injury , Ancillary relief
printer mail-detail

Making a break

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
77073115_4

How do you protect a client’s PI damages prior to family proceedings, asks Margaret Hatwood

Are your client’s personal injury (PI) awards at risk in the family courts? The short answer to this is yes and now more so than ever before. The fuzzy discretion of the family courts has now intruded into the PI lawyer’s arena. Could a PI lawyer be negligent if he or she does not protect his client’s damages? Quite possibly must be the answer to that.

Although the family courts have for many years regarded damages for personal injuries as part of the matrimonial pot available for division, historically, the awards made have been relatively small in terms of both amount and percentage. However, a recent case, Mansfield v Mansfield [2011] EWCA Civ 1056, [2011] All ER (D) 87 (Sep) has changed all that.

Division of financial assets

Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) the family courts, in dealing with the division of assets, have to have regard to the factors

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