header-logo header-logo

Ping pongs

02 October 2014
Issue: 7624 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line
printer mail-detail

The practice was that HM Revenue and Customs would refuse to disclose an address for a respondent to matrimonial proceedings so that they could be served on him without an order from the Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD) which led to the absurdity of a petition having to be transferred to the PRFD simply to procure such an order. What is the current requirement given that the Central Family Court is now with us and the role of the PRFD has changed?

An order directed to HMRC for the disclosure of information about a party’s address must be made under the inherent jurisdiction in accordance with the Guidance issued by the President’s Office (November 2003). Where such an order is sought in a case proceeding in the family court, the proceedings must be transferred to the High Court under FPR 2010, r 29.17 and PD29C. Although, in most circumstances, a case may only be transferred to the High Court by a judge of the High Court or above, a transfer for the purpose of

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll