M v B

M v B

The court does not have jurisdiction to summarily strike out the Thwaite application on the basis of lack of real prospects of success; the matter should proceed to an abbreviated hearing with proper notice and evidence.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: M; Respondent/cross Applicant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Application (variation/set Aside) / Ruling on Strike Out Application and Directions
Outcome
Strike out application refused; directions given for further hearing.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Variation of Consent Orders, Strike Out Applications, Executory Orders
Family Law Financial Remedies Variation of Consent Orders Strike Out Applications Executory Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant/cross Respondent

B

Respondent/cross Applicant

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Application (variation/set Aside) / Ruling on Strike Out Application and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to summarily strike out an application to vary or set aside an executory financial remedy order
  2. 2 Whether the application should be struck out for lack of merit or real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The court does not have jurisdiction to summarily strike out the Thwaite application on the basis of lack of real prospects of success; the matter should proceed to an abbreviated hearing with proper notice and evidence.

Court Disposition

Strike out application refused; directions given for further hearing.

Orders

  • Respondent to file response to applicant’s statements.
  • Applicant may file short reply if advised.