Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce
and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email
emma.reitano@lexisnexis.co.uk.
A review of financial remedy cases (October 2015 to February 2016)
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
The article continues Christopher’s regular reviews of the more important recent financial remedy cases this one covering the period from October 2015 to the end of February 2016.
Amongst the arbitrary selection of finance cases which attracted the attention of the writer during the period under review the eagerly awaited decisions of the Supreme Court in
Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60 and
Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61 were among the first tasty morsels. Both cases involved wives seeking to set aside consent orders on the grounds of deliberate misrepresentation. Both succeeded. Each case raised separate but related issues so that although heard together separate judgments were delivered. There is nevertheless much cross fertilisation.
The issue of the procedure for setting aside consent orders ('a procedural quagmire' per Munby J in
L v L [2006] EWHC 956 (Fam)) arose indirectly. Lady Hale in
Sharland approved the decision of Munby P in
CS v ACS and BH [2015] EWHC 1005 (Fam) that the statement of Practice Direction 30A (which supplements the provisions for appeals in Part 30 of the FPR 2010) at...
Read the full article here.
