Financial proceedings

General principles

In financial remedy proceedings, additional rules govern the exercise of the court’s discretion in determining costs. These rules apply only to specified financial remedy proceedings.

Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 28.3(5) provides that the general rule in financial remedy proceedings is that the court will not make an order requiring one party to pay the costs of another party, however, it may do so at any stage of the proceedings where it considers it appropriate because of the conduct of a party (whether before or during the proceedings), having regard to:

•
any failure by a party to comply with FPR 2010, any order of the court or any relevant practice direction
•
with effect from 29 April 2024, any failure by a party, without good reason, to:
1. ◦
  attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM), as defined in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 3.1, or
2. ◦
  attend non-court dispute resolution
•
any open offer to settle made by a party
•
whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue
•
the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Financial Remedies Court publishes revised ES2 template (composite schedule of assets and income)

The Financial Remedies Court (FRC) national lead judge, Mr Justice Peel, and the deputy national lead judge, His Honour Judge Hess, have announced, with the authority of the President of the Family Division, a revised ES2 template and updated explanatory notes. The ES2 (composite schedule of assets and income) was originally issued in April 2022 alongside the Statement on the efficient conduct of financial remedy hearings in the Financial Remedies Court below High Court judge level (the FRC efficiency statement). The revised version retains the familiar structure but introduces changes intended to improve clarity, usability and accessibility for all court users.

Family law in the United Arab Emirates

Family analysis: Alexandra Tribe, managing partner and Byron James, partner, at Expatriate Law consider recent changes to family law in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that have transformed the legal landscape for both Muslim and non-Muslim residents and the implications for family lawyers.

Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Direction Update No 2 of 2025

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) Practice Direction Update No 2 of 2025 has been issued and makes amendments to FPR 2010, PD 36ZA and inserts a new Practice Direction, FPR 2010, PD 36ZI. The new Practice Direction FPR 2010, PD 36ZI supplements FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 36.2 (Transitional Arrangements and Pilot Schemes) to underpin a pilot scheme for notification to the police when a relevant non-molestation order is made or varied or extended by the court, under a new procedure to notify the police by automated electronic means or by email once a relevant non molestation order is made. The amendments made to FPR 2010, PD 36ZA remove the provisions providing for the court to notify the police of non-molestation orders, or variation or discharge of non-molestation orders, and of service of such orders from its scope in the North Yorkshire Pilot. Notifications of relevant non molestation orders where made will instead be subsumed by the national solution provided by the pilot in FPR 2010, PD 36ZI.

Court of Appeal allows Council’s appeal in connection with Judicial Review claim (Surrey County Council v R (on the application of BC)

Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal (‘Court’) allowed the appeal brought by Surrey County Council (SCC) in connection with the judge’s decision dated 15 December 2023 permitting a claim for judicial review and set aside the judge’s three declarations dated 20 December 2023. One of these declarations being that SCC owed a duty to accommodate BC, a 17-year-old child, under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). The court determined the judge was wrong to conclude that a duty was owed under section 20 of the Act, or that BC was in fact being accommodated by SCC under section 20 and opined that the judge had erred in determining that SCC had acted with (Wednesbury) unreasonableness. This case provides a solid overview of the timeframes involved for bringing a claim for judicial review, confirmation of when a local authority is dutybound to accommodate a child under ChA 1989, s 20 and clarity on the alternative methods that can be employed to children not deemed a ‘child in need’ and not requiring accommodation. Written by Paul Ridout, partner at HCR Law.