header-logo header-logo

At a safe distance

14 October 2016 / Geraldine Morris
Issue: 7718 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Geraldine Morris considers when applications within financial remedy proceedings should be heard separately

  • How the requirement as to a committal application will impact on any other applications in the proceedings.
  • Is the court requited to consider the parties’ circumstances de novo on an application to vary?

One of the oddities of family law, at least from a client’s perspective, is that while the client may view “their case” in the singular, in reality, there may be several separate strands before the court, for example, the divorce (usually straightforward), financial provision (generally one application before the court, but with the potential to branch off down different routes particularly if enforcement is required), and arrangements for any children (hopefully, in most cases, capable of agreement without proceedings being issued, but sometimes not). And different rules and principles may apply to these different strands. When a scenario arises whereby separate applications and hearings are required, clients may think that this is just an opportunity for their lawyers to charge them yet more fees, but in some cases,

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