Cases

Publicity and Confidentiality Variation Applications Executory Orders Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)

BT v CU [2021] EWFC 87

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2021/87.html

TLATA Applications Overseas Divorce and the 1984 Act

Aldoukhi v Abdullah [2021] EWHC 3086 (Fam)

Judgment date: 18 November 2021 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2021/3086.html Moor J. W’s applications under TOLATA and Part III MFPA concerning three properties in London. H and W were Kuwaiti nationals. W had received a financial award from the Kuwait Court in 2019.

Security for costs Costs

MG v AR [2021] EWHC 3133 (Fam)

Judgment date: 16 November 2021 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2021/3063.html Mostyn J. In the first reported judgment on security for costs since the advent of the FPR, Mostyn J gives a helpful review of the applicable principles in family cases. Unlike in civil case

TLATA Applications Overseas Divorce and the 1984 Act

Aldoukhi v Abdullah [2021] EWHC 3086 (Fam)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2021/3086.html Moor J. W’s applications under TOLATA and Part III MFPA concerning three properties in London. H and W were Kuwaiti nationals. W had received a financial award from the Kuwait Court in 2019. This appears to be the

Security for costs Costs

MG v AR [2021] EWHC 3133 (Fam)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2021/3063.html Mostyn J. In the first reported judgment on security for costs since the advent of the FPR, Mostyn J gives a helpful review of the applicable principles in family cases. Unlike in civil case law, he considers that the

Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications

UD v DN [2021] EWCA Civ 1947

Judgment date: 21 December 2021 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/UD-v-DN-judgment.pdf

Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications

UD v DN (Schedule 1, Children Act 1989; Capital Provision) [2021] EWCA Civ 1947

Judgment date: 21 December 2021 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1947.html Moylan LJ (judgment), King LJ and Newey LJ. The Court of Appeal allowed a father’s appeal against a settlement of property order in favour of the parties’ two younger children (17 and 12