Andrew Day (St Ives Chambers)

Andrew Day (St Ives Chambers)

Andrew Day is a barrister, IFLA financial scheme arbitrator, Resolution-trained family mediator and private FDR evaluator.

read more

‘On and Off’, ‘Off and On’, ‘On and On’ or ‘It Depends’? The Duration of the Duty of Disclosure

‘On and Off’, ‘Off and On’, ‘On and On’ or ‘It Depends’? The Duration of the Duty of Disclosure

[2026] 3 FRJ 202. When, precisely, does the duty of disclosure end, both in cases before the court and those proceeding via arbitration? The answer may be ‘it depends’.

When It’s Good, It’s Very Good… The ES2, Aged Three; a Pedant’s Perspective

When It’s Good, It’s Very Good… The ES2, Aged Three; a Pedant’s Perspective

On 11 January 2025, the pro forma schedule of assets known to all as the ES2 turned three years old. Just like the little girl (with the little curl, right in the middle of her forehead) of nursery rhyme fame, who one imagines may be of a similar age, when

ST v AR: The Origin of Assets and the Assessment of Needs

ST v AR: The Origin of Assets and the Assessment of Needs

As Mostyn J observed in Clarke v Clarke [2023] 2 FLR 1 at [36], Peel J’s oft-quoted summary of the law in WC v HC (Financial Remedies Agreements) (Rev 1) [2022] 2 FLR 1110 at [21] is an ‘impeccable synopsis of the jurisprudence applicable in financial remedy cases [which]

They Think It’s All Over… It Is Not! Express Declarations, Subsequent Agreements and the Decision in Re Cynberg

They Think It’s All Over… It Is Not! Express Declarations, Subsequent Agreements and the Decision in Re Cynberg

In Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, at [49], Baroness Hale said that ‘[n]o-one now doubts that … an express declaration [of trust] is conclusive unless varied by subsequent agreement or affected by proprietary estoppel’. It might reasonably be observed that the authority cited for that proposition, the decision of

Cohabitation and Separation: When Does the Clock Start and Stop?

Cohabitation and Separation: When Does the Clock Start and Stop?

Since the two seminal decisions of the House of Lords, first in White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and then in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186, introduced practitioners to the potentially crucial distinction (in sharing cases, at least) between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, and

‘Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns’ – Can a Change in the Law Be a Barder Event?

‘Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns’ – Can a Change in the Law Be a Barder Event?

Can a change in domestic law, resulting from judicial tergiversation, ever satisfy the Barder test? The answer to this question depends, in part, on how widely or narrowly the Barder test is interpreted. In recent years it has often been interpreted narrowly – particularly by Mostyn J in DB v DLJ

D(R) Day: Today’s Changes to FPR Parts 3 and 28

D(R) Day: Today’s Changes to FPR Parts 3 and 28

FPR Part 3 has historically been underused. This is strange given that: 1. FPR 1.4(1) provides that the court ‘must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases’; and 2. FPR 1.4(2)(f) states that active case management includes ‘encouraging the parties to use a non-court