An order for sale under section 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) may only be made if there has been a legal services payment order, a secured periodical payments order, a lump sum order or a property adjustment order. Orders for sale are most commonly made as an adjunct to a lump sum order or a property adjustment

It is presumed from the information provided that the order referred is a transfer of property order made under section 24(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). Such an order is not capable of variation under MCA 1973, s 31: see MCA 1973, s 31(2)(e). Capital orders are intended to be final and incapable of variation with only limited exceptions which would not appear to apply here. Furthermore, the jurisdiction under MCA 1973, s 24(1)(a) only permits transfers to the other party, a child of the family

Following divorce, a former spouse, who remains in occupation of a former matrimonial home, will no longer have home rights effective as a charge on the dwelling-house, unless the court directs otherwise (sections 31(8) and 33(5) of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996)). However, such an order must be made during the marriage (FLA 1996, s 33(5) and (8)). Where such an order has been obtained, further protection will be required using Form HR2 (registered land) or Form K8 (unregistered land). Assuming that no such order

• restrictive covenants, and • positive covenants protected by restriction(s) (to require direct deeds of covenants in respect of the burden of positive covenants) On an application to register the assent, how do you ensure that HM Land Registry notes the benefit and burden of the restrictive covenants against the registered titles of the dominant and servient land, and enters the benefit of the positive covenants and restriction(s). Does HM Land Registry look through

Amendment of petition An application (petition) for a judicial separation that was filed before the parties have been married for a year may not be amended, after that year, for a petition of divorce (Butler v Butler, The Queen's Proctor Intervening). See also the guidance from the President of the Family Division: President’s guidance (interim) Defective divorce petitions/decrees and Practice Note: Amended, supplemental and further petitions (pre-DDSA 2020). Filing a further petition The general rule is that where there is already on file a petition by the same petitioner which has not been dismissed or finally determined that petitioner cannot file a further (or second) petition

Practice Note: Part 36 offers—what are they, why make them? sets out when and why you may wish to make a Part 36 offer. They can be made in respect of all or only some of the issues in dispute between the parties (Practice Notes: Part 36 offers—who can and when to make them? and Part 36 offers—how to make a valid Part 36 offer). They can also be made pre-action, although the costs recovery is complicated where the offer is accepted pre-action such that there are never any proceedings on foot (see Practice

Background to the digital trial management systems The two digital trial management systems describe themselves below as follows: • Opus 2 Magnum—A seamless path from preparation to trial. Host and manage documents and transcripts, compile chronologies and prepare for trial. Opus 2 has been developed to mimic how legal teams traditionally work with paper, making it easy to use and popular with legal professionals of all levels, from associates through to judges • CaseLines—CaseLines delivers a proven, secure, purpose-built platform for managing evidence review in a virtual hearing. Our platform supports any type and size of case in a virtual setting. From a simple hearing to full-scale trials with lawyers, witnesses, judges and clerks all able to see the same documents at the same time General advantages of these systems include the option to professionally

Section 30 of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) provides that where one spouse or civil partner has the right to occupy a dwelling house, either because they own it or have a contractual tenancy or is a statutory tenant of it, the other spouse or civil partner has home rights in relation to that dwelling house. These rights are, if in occupation, not to be evicted without leave of the court or, if not in occupation the right, with leave of the court, to return. Under FLA 1996, s 31, such home rights take effect as a charge on the dwelling house in question so as to give protection

A beneficial joint tenancy may be severed in accordance with the section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (as amended by the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 by means of a statutory notice. Severance is the process by which a joint tenancy is converted into a tenancy in common. Plainly, if a severance is intended, it should be effected by the service of such an express notice, wherever possible; it is a unilateral act and the consent of

It is open to parties voluntarily to come to an agreement regarding child maintenance and it is common that informal arrangements are made whereby one party pays the mortgage on the property in which the other party and the child are living. However the parent with responsibility for the child could apply to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) for a calculation of maintenance obligations in accordance with the statutory framework and formula governed by the Child Support Act 1991, which would replace any such obligation. They could also seek to bring a claim to establish an interest in the property, whether by way of a common intention

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 provide at FPR 2010, PD 9A, para 6.2 as follows: ‘As a consequence of [Re D (Minors) (Conciliation: Privilege) [1993] 1 FLR 932], evidence of anything said or of any admission made in the course of an [financial dispute resolution (FDR)] appointment will not be admissible in evidence, except at the trial of a person for an offence committed at the appointment or in the very exceptional circumstances indicated in Re D.’ ie, discussions at an FDR appointment will usually be without prejudice. Reinforcing that approach is the principal that the judge who deals with the FDR appointment cannot be involved

In Amey v Amey, an agreement had been reached between the parties that the husband would pay the wife a lump sum of £120,000 with there being a clean break otherwise. Before the agreement could be put in the form of a consent order, the wife died. The husband, rather than seeking to enforce the agreement, sought to have it set aside and for the lump sum to be repaid. The court refused the husband’s application. Scott Baker J concluded that the wife’s death did not undermine the fundamental assumptions on which the agreement had been based and therefore did not amount to a Barder event. See Barder v Barder (Caluori Intervening) and Practice Note: Setting aside financial