Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Gordon Dadds

Gordon Dadds

Emma Morris and Lara Myers look at the factors that may prevent pronouncement of a decree, and the increasing calls for the introduction of no-fault divorce

Unlike any other type of legal contract, the contract of marriage involves taking on life-changing financial consequences without being told in advance what they actually are. This would seem wrong and unfair, although marriage is of course more than the sum of its legal parts. But how can you agree to something if you do not know what the consequences of entering into that agreement are? Would it really be so difficult for basic information to be provided to couples at the point they register their wish to marry, even in a simple leaflet form? This should not be seen as a deterrent to marriage, as if one is blind as to the obligations and consequences that will arise in the event that the marriage fails, consent on entering the union is fettered at best.

Lara Myers highlights the implications of Brexit and the potential impact on jurisdiction issues in family proceedings

Given the increasingly international nature of families, the implications of the leave vote in the EU referendum in June 2016 are particularly relevant within the realms of family law. This article examines the potential impact of the UK’s decision to leave the EU on issuing divorce proceedings, child abduction and maintenance enforcement.

Emma Morris examines the powers of the courts to make civil restraint orders and the circumstances in which such an order may be appropriate

The case of Welch v Welch [2015] has a long and complicated litigation history, often driven by the vexatious litigation behaviour of the wife. In his judgment dated 2 June 2015 ([2015] EWFC B179), DJ Hess (as he then was) said in relation to the wife’s behaviour (at para 33):

Anna Wagstaff considers competing requirements to protect maintenance creditors and the need to avoid irreconcilable decisions

EU Regulation No. 4/2009 (known as the maintenance regulation) came into force in domestic law on 18 June 2011. Heralded as good news for maintenance creditors, it made it much easier to enforce a maintenance decision made in one member state in another member state. It had been recognised that there is not always a level playing field between the maintenance payer and the payee in EU law. The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 had treated the maintenance creditor as the weaker party, whose position may require particular consideration (Farrell v Long [1997]).