Mon04242017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Hall Brown

Hall Brown

Laura Guillon analyses a Court of Appeal decision where international assets and a reluctant party prevented the implementation of a financial consent order

In Bezeliansky v Bezelianskaya [2016] the Court of Appeal was concerned with a big-money case, with a convoluted history and a multitude of issues to consider including non-disclosure, the setting aside and variation of consent orders, enforcement, and committal for non-compliance with an order. The decision highlights that even the most carefully crafted financial consent order may be frustrated when parties and properties are located in different jurisdictions.

Abigail Lowther reviews the right to privacy in proceedings before the Court of Appeal

In Norman v Norman [2017], the Court of Appeal dismissed the wife’s applications for anonymity in respect of an appeal relating to financial remedy proceedings. The leading judgment was given by Gloster LJ, supported by Lewison and King LJJ, and found that only exceptional circumstances would justify a departure from the normal principle that matters in the Court of Appeal are heard in open court and are not subject to anonymity directions. The court found that this case did not include any such exceptional circumstances.

Ellen Walker considers proposals for family cases to be dealt with online, and developments to date

In the Autumn Statement 2015, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that radical and unprecedented court reforms were intended to be implemented by 2020. In total, a £700m budget will be dedicated to investment in the court ‘modernisation programme’ that will update and digitise all courts in England and Wales, moving from an outdated paper-based system to one that is in step with the internet society and the growing expectation that services will be delivered digitally.

Alice Couriel examines the issue of delay in the service of a petition, and the implications as to jurisdiction

In Thum v Thum [2016], the husband contended that the wife’s delay in serving the divorce petition on him was tactical, and on his application the court considered whether the wife’s petition should be stayed or dismissed. In his judgment Mostyn J usefully explored the relevant law, procedure and current requirements as to the service of a petition in family proceedings.