Mon06262017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Jason Schroen examines whether a pre-nuptial agreement entered into in England and Wales is enforceable in Australia

In a modern-day globalised world, international families are becoming increasingly common. International families are more transient and may establish homes in different countries throughout their lifetime. At the time parties enter into a pre-nuptial agreement it can be extremely difficult to foreshadow their future movements, however, in certain circumstances, where one or both of the parties is Australian, or a party owns, or intends to own, property in Australia, the enforceability of a pre-nuptial agreement entered into in this jurisdiction must be considered.

Rita Veitch presents an overview of the basis on which the court may terminate the parental responsibility of an unmarried father

Although the courts have the power to terminate an unmarried father’s parental responsibility, it is very unusual for them to do so. This is evidenced by the small number of reported cases where such an order has been made.

James Carroll and Shantel Burbridge highlight the disparity in the courts’ approach to cohabitation that precedes marriage or civil partnership, and cohabitants who do not marry or enter into a civil partnership

This article explores the contrast between a period of cohabitation being taken into account in calculating the length of marriages and civil partnerships, and the current state of law on cohabitation.

Paula Butterworth and Sohinni Sanghvi provide an overview of the court’s powers to make financial orders and the significance of the timing of the decree nisi

The courts have the power under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to make financial provision for a spouse or any children of the family on the breakdown of the relationship between married parties. The opening words of s23, MCA 1973 provide that orders for financial relief may only be made on the granting of a decree of divorce, nullity or judicial separation or at any time thereafter. In this article we will review the recent decision in K v K (Financial Remedy Final Order prior to Decree Nisi) [2016], the central feature of this case being whether a financial order made before decree nisi can be remedied by a later order, and what steps practitioners can take to ensure the correct drafting of orders in such circumstances.

Andrew Baines looks at the conundrum of mediated agreements that may be ‘too good’ to work in practice

This article sets out my understanding of one major reason why a parenting couple can fail to follow an agreement they have come to in mediation. In a nutshell, the parties reach an agreement that, at the time, makes sense to them and meets their needs. However it places demands upon them that are beyond their day-to-day capacity to meet and so fails. How and why does this situation arise?

Lehna Hewitt considers when information from financial remedy proceedings can be disclosed in related legal proceedings

Where criminal proceedings arise in relation to a child, in addition to care proceedings, it is recognised by both the family and criminal justice systems that the children involved and their families need consistent treatment. There is therefore a detailed and comprehensive Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) protocol dealing with the disclosure of information from family law proceedings involving children in related criminal proceedings (see www.legalease.co.uk/protocol). The position in relation to financial remedy proceedings is different however, and this article aims to provide a brief overview of how the courts deal with issues of cross-disclosure in financial remedy proceedings and the development of the case law in this area.

Josh McEvoy suggests that long-established principles regarding children giving evidence may at long last be followed by the courts

The right of a child to be heard within family law proceedings has often provoked debate among legal professionals. The law has for a long time adopted a rather conventional, paternalistic approach to the giving of evidence by children, and historically decisions have been taken for children by appointed representatives with a presumption that those decisions represent the child’s best interests. In recent years we have seen a growing number of cases that have attempted to deal with this thorny issue, however, despite guidance from the Supreme Court back in 2010 (Re W (children) [2010]) that judges should not presume that a child should not give evidence, many have remained somewhat conservative in their approach.

Rayner Grice sets out key considerations and practical tips when dealing with multi-generational households and third-party property interests within families

A recent study by Aviva forecast that 3.8 million people aged between 21 and 34 will be living with their parents by 2025, a third more than at the moment. The number of households containing two or more families is also expected to rise from 1.5 million to 2.2 million. The main reason is the affordability of housing.