Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal upheld setting aside a consent financial remedy order for deliberate non-disclosure and rejected an intervenor’s bid to recover gifts from the husband.
Exemption to conduct litigation cannot be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist. The existence of a clear authorisation route under the Legal Services Act 2007 means the situation faced by Ms Burton-Durham and her client is not exceptional. The court lacks jurisdiction to grant exemption in cases not before it. The application for exemption is refused.
Source excerpt
The lower court failed to provide adequate reasons distinguishing between an assurance of ownership and a right to occupy, and did not properly consider relevant documentary evidence. This constituted a material omission and procedural irregularity. The findings on proprietary estoppel and the resulting orders were not sufficiently reasoned to enable the parties to understand the basis for the decision. The appeal is allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for rehearing.
Source excerpt
XX v GH [2026] EWFC 51 (B) (27 February 2026)
The Family Court refused to exempt a Chartered Legal Executive to conduct litigation in financial remedy proceedings, but granted permission to appeal.
Archer v Archer & Ors [2026] EWHC 468 (Fam) (23 February 2026)
High Court family appeal over proprietary estoppel in family property dispute. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and remitted the issue for rehearing.
The respondent was in contempt of court for breaching financial remedy orders and undertakings. Procedural defects (lack of personal service, witness statement instead of affidavit) did not cause prejudice and do not invalidate the proceedings. Only an immediate custodial sentence is appropriate given the seriousness and duration of the breaches.
Source excerpt
Walton v Walton (Re Committal) [2025] EWFC 16 (B) (07 January 2025)
The Family Court found all alleged breaches proved and sentenced the respondent to 28 days’ imprisonment, suspended pending conclusion of financial remedy proceedings.
Both parties bear responsibility for the contested hearing, both failed to make reasonable concessions, and both succeeded and failed in part. It would not be just to impose a costs order one way rather than the other; each party should pay their own costs.
Source excerpt
PT did not intend to acquire a beneficial interest in No22 when added to the legal title; RH is solely beneficially entitled to No22. RH had no beneficial interest in No11; SB is solely beneficially entitled to No11. The evidence did not support AW's claims to the contrary.
Source excerpt
The intended purpose of the rules is to exclude leave applications under section 13 MFPA 1984 from the general 'no order' rule for costs in financial remedy proceedings. The drafting of FPR 28.3 (4) (b) (ii) was in error by failing to repeat the specific exception for section 13 leave applications. The court applies a rectifying construction to resolve the conflict, preferring the exclusion in FPR 2.3 and treating leave applications as not subject to the general rule in FPR 28.3.
Source excerpt
Explore more
