Wed10182017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Hart Brown

Hart Brown

Vanessa McMurtrie and Catherine Poleykett comment on the decision in Green v Adams and the interaction between applications under Sch 1 to the Children Act 1989 and maintenance assessments

Since its inception in the early 1990s, the legislation surrounding the payment of child support from a non-resident parent has been a thorn in the side of family lawyers and the government alike. The decision in Green v Adams [2017] serves to highlight the ongoing limitations in the statutory scheme.

Vanessa McMurtrie looks at the challenges of dealing with unrepresented parties and offers guidance on the tricky area of court bundles

The right to a fair trial is fundamental to the rule of law and democracy itself and enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, Art 6. No wonder, therefore, that Peter Jackson J highlighted the risk of unfairness to litigants in person (LiPs) in Re B (Litigants in Person: Timely Service of Documents) [2016], and the need for the timely service of documents on LiPs.

Vanessa McMurtrie examines the lessons to be learnt from the outcome in the long-running case of Wyatt v Vince

If ever there was a good example of why divorcees of modest means should agree a clean-break dismissal of, at the very least, their capital claims, Wyatt v Vince [2016] is it. It took the parties five years to sort out their outstanding claims, some 32 years after they separated. The legal bill for the wife is believed to be significant. The husband fought the matter out of principle, and could afford to throw money at the case. But what can we learn from this relatively unusual case, and pass on to our ordinary-wealth clients?

Kate Smith looks at a Barder appeal based on the arrangements for the children of the family

Hot on the heels of the consideration of Barder appeals in ‘Finding closure’ by Beth Mason and Georgia Day (FLJ149, p5) came the decision in Nasim v Nasim [2015]. In this case the husband successfully applied for permission to appeal out of time the terms of an order made in financial remedy proceedings, which once more saw the court consider and apply the four principles established in Barder v Calouri [1988]. The judge in Nasim also impressed on the parties the importance of using non-court dispute resolution methods to resolve their differences by agreement and went so far as to order them to do so.

Vanessa McMurtrie analyses a recent decision on improperly obtained documents and assesses the dominance of needs in middle-income cases

The relatively modest assets in Arbili v Arbili [2015] make this decision of particular interest: all too often reported cases are concerned with the very wealthy. Most high-street practitioners will deal with ordinary wealth, where academic arguments about matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, whether assets were acquired before or after separation, inherited wealth, and the principle of sharing, are trumped by need. The case also raises interesting points about the use of improperly obtained documents, and the impact of that on the court’s approach, where the husband sought to set aside the order on the basis of non-disclosure by the wife, together with departure from equality in a ‘needs’ case.