Parties must nail their evidential colours to the mast, observes David Burrows
Perhaps the most important role of the lawyer in any litigation—and financial provision on family breakdown is no exception—is to define the issues in the case: of fact and of law. Once the issues in the case are defined (and refined in many family cases, as factors change prior to a final hearing: see, eg Lady Hale in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 4 All ER 1: “In family life, as in family proceedings, nothing stands completely still”), then the parties can be clear what evidence they seek to adduce; for it is a cardinal rule of evidence that only evidence which is relevant to an issue can be admitted by the court.
In N v F (Financial Orders: Pre-Acquired Wealth) [2011] EWHC 586 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 96 (Apr), Mostyn J provides clear guidance warnings to practitioners on dealing with evidence in preparation for trial. The background to the case—another exercise of judicial discretion in another “not very
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
