Categories
Law

Pulling the Threads Together

FINANCIAL REMEDIES IN BITE SIZED CHUNKS

As practitioners, what we like above all is a concise summary of the law, ideally set out in Roman sub-paragraphs, under the heading “Pulling the threads together…”. This avoids the difficult and time-consuming task of having to analyse for ourselves what guidance can properly be drawn from a case, or even what was its ratio1.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn was the master of slicing and dicing complex issues of procedure and law into bite-sized chunks. It is unsurprising that the most cited financial remedy cases include Mostyn J’s judgments on intervenors (TL v ML [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam)), freezing orders (UL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam)) and spousal maintenance (SS v NS [2014] EWHC 4183 (Fam).

Following Mostyn J’s retirement, the baton has passed to Mr Justice Peel who since 26 April 2022 has held the position as National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court. Peel J has followed Mostyn’s lead in succinctly summarising the law in judgments ranging from an overview of the general principles (WC v HC [2022] EWFC 22), how to plead conduct (Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130), Daniels v Walker applications (GA v EL [2023] EWFC 187) and, most recently, Schedule 1 claims (Y v Z (Schedule 1) [2024] EWFC 4

The attached table sets out the location of concise summaries of the law, contained in judgments handed down generally at High Court level. The table does not contain all of the leading cases such as White and McFarlane; it is more of a ‘summary of the summaries’.

To some extent, this is a companion piece to blogs I have written about procedure (e.g. The Winds of Change). Or if you like, it is a guide to the Financial Remedies Multiverse.

GENERAL PRINCIPLESJudgmentJudgeParagraphs
Overview of financial remediesWC v HC (Financial Remedies: Agreements) [2022] EWFC 22  Peel J, 22 March 2022[21 (i) to (xvi)]2
S.25 FACTORS ETC.   
AgreementsWC v HC [2022] EWFC 22Peel J, 22 March 2022[22]
Duration of marriage: Relevance of cohabitation, engagementVV v VV [2022] EWFC 41  Peel J, 13 May 2022[40-46] [47-48]
Family support including Thomas v Thomas (‘inter vivos subvention’)WC v HC [2022] EWFC 22Peel J, 22 March 2022[23]
Inheritance prospectsWC v HC [2022] EWFC 22Peel J, 22 March 2022[24]
Maintenance – spousalSS v NS [2014] EWHC 4183 (Fam).Mostyn J, 10 December 2014[46]
Maintenance – childCollardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs [2022] EWFC 135
Galbraith-Marten v De Renee (Rev 1) [2023] EWFC 253
Y v Z (Schedule 1) [2024] EWFC 4		Mostyn J, 19 April 2023  
Cobb J, 20 December 2023 Peel J, 16 January 2024		[129]    

[20-22]

[35-36]
NeedsFF v KF [2017] EWHC 1093 (Fam)Mostyn J, 12 May 2015[18]
Post-separation accrualDR v UG [2023] 68Moor J, 5 April 2023[50-54]
Re-attribution (add back)US v SR [2014] EWHC 175 (Fam)Roberts J[63]
Soft debtsP v Q [2022] EWFC B9  HHJ Hess, 10 February 2022[19x]
Special contributionDR v UG [2023] 68Moor J, 5 April 2023[49]
Trusts3HO v TL [2023] EWFC 215Peel J, 1 December 2023[51]
Variation of settlementsHashem v Shayif [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam)Munby J, 22 September 2008[290]
OTHER APPLICATIONS   
Ex parte applicationsUL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam)Mostyn J, 16 May 2013[52]
Freezing ordersUL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam)Mostyn J, 16 May 2013[51]
Maintenance Pending Suit/ Costs AllowancesTL v ML [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam)
HAT v LAT [2023] EWFC 162		Mostyn (DHCJ), 9 December 2005;
Peel J, 29 September 2023		[124]

[19-28]
EXPERTS   
Business valuationHO v TL [2023] EWFC 215Peel J, 1 December 2023[20-27]
Daniels v Walker applicationsGA v EL [2023] EWFC 187Peel J, 31 October 2023[25-32]
Single Joint ExpertsBR v BR [2024] EWFC 11Peel J, 30 January 2024[7-18]
    
PROCEDURE   
Adverse inferencesNG v SG [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam)

Moher v Moher [2019] EWCA 1482		Mostyn J, 9 December 2011

Court of Appeal, 21 August 2019		[16]

[87-91]
Conduct in financial remediesOG v AG [2020] EWFC 52 Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130Mostyn J, 29 July 2020 Peel J, 4 August 2023[34-39]     [40-48]
Disclosure obligations (full and frank, quasi-inquisitorial proceedings)Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315Court of Appeal, 19 November 2010[36]
Illegitimately obtained documentsUL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam)Mostyn J, 16 May 2013[55-56]
Non-compliance with rules, efficiency statement etc.WC v HC  [2022] EWFC 22   GA v EL [2023] EWFC 187 (Peel J, 22 March 2022[1]     [2-4]
Trial template, importance of not going part heardAugousti v Matharu [2023] EWHC 1900 (Fam)Mostyn J, 10 August 2023 
Witness statementsWC v HC [2022] EWFC 22  Peel J, 22 March 2022[1 (ii)]
    
COSTS   
Gross disparityYC v ZC [2022] EWFC 137  HHJ Hess, 17 October 2022[42]
SCHEDULE 1   
General principlesY v Z (Schedule 1) [2024] EWFC 4Peel J, 16 January 2024[35-36]
Millionaire’s DefenceY v Z (Schedule 1) [2024] EWFC 4Peel J, 16 January 2024[27-29]
    
APPEALS   
General principlesDitchfield v Ditchfield [2023] EWHC 2303 (Fam)   GK v PR [2021] EWFC 106 Peel J, 20 September 2023; 14 December 2021[4-9]     [4-7]
Prolix skeleton argumentsGK v PR [2021] EWFC 106Peel J, 14 December 2021 [3]
Prolix grounds of appealAugousti v Matharu [2023] EWHC 1900 (Fam)Mostyn J, 10 August 2023[4]
Stay (applications)NB v LB of Haringey [2011] EWHC 3544Mostyn J, 7 October 2011[7]

Alexander Chandler KC

6 February 2024

  1. While only the ratio of a case has binding effect, dicta and other guidance can be highly influential on another court. See Moore Bick LJ in MK v CK [2011] EWCA Civ 793 at [86] “…it is binding in the true sense only for its ratio decidendi. Nonetheless, I would also accept that where this court gives guidance on the proper approach to take in resolving any particular kind of dispute, judges at all levels must pay heed to that guidance and depart from it only after careful deliberation and when it is clear that the particular circumstances of the case require them to do so in order to give effect to fundamental principles”. Also see Brooke LJ in KU v Liverpool [2005] EWCA Civ 475 at [48] “…Practice directions provide invaluable guidance to matters of practice in the civil courts, but in so far as they contain statements of the law which are wrong they carry no authority at all.” ↩︎
  2. Clarke v Clarke [2022] EWHC 2698 (Fam), at [36] Mostyn J proposed adding a 17th principle, that the court’s goal “should be to achieve, if not immediately, then at a defined date in the future, a complete economic separation between the parties. ↩︎
  3. With thanks to Nick Allen KC for suggesting this and the following entry ↩︎

2 replies on “Pulling the Threads Together”

Leave a comment