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:◦attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM), as defined in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 3.1, or◦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

Post adoption contact—where are we now? (Re S (Placement Order Contact))

Family analysis: The Court of Appeal judgment in Re S (Placement Order Contact) carefully considers the court’s approach to contact between siblings at the placement for adoption stage. There has been a shift in recent years with a great deal of research as to the potential advantages to adopted children of maintaining some sort of direct contact with their birth family. That being said, on the ground it remains unusual for orders to be made under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) for direct contact, with proposals in final care plans often being for indirect or letterbox contact. The Court of Appeal makes clear that in each case where placement orders are made, there needs to be a bespoke analysis of the future contact arrangements, in order to meet the complex and life-long needs of children who are to be placed for adoption. Written by Gemma Adams, associate solicitor at Dawson Cornwell LLP.

Family weekly highlights—17 July 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of the Supreme Court decision in Standish v Standish on matrimonialisation and the sharing principle. Recent judgments on international relocation under the Children Act 1989, care orders and the division of assets in accordance with the sharing principle are also considered.

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Stand...

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.

Family weekly highlights—10 July 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of the second Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Direction Update of 2025, which introduces a new pilot scheme, FPR 2010, PD 36ZI. Analyses of the scope of court’s powers under section 37(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), the duty to accommodate a child under ChA 1989, s 20 and the revised ES2 template (composite schedule of assets and income) for use in the Financial Remedies Court are included. The recent Supreme Court decision in Standish on sharing, matrimonial and non-matrimonial property is considered. A review of family law in the United Arab Emirates is set out. Recent judgments on sibling contact in adoption proceedings and requesting access to court documents and the principles of open justice are also considered.