Buehrlen v Buehrlen [2017] EWHC 3643 (Fam)

Judgment date: 24 November 2017

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/3643.html

Related

Money Corner: Divorcing Couples and the Family Home – Five Tax Pitfalls

The aim of this article is to highlight the main pitfalls that pertain to the transfer/sale of the family home. Though these only come to light once lawyers are no longer involved, we can offer value to our clients by highlighting such issues before they discover them for themselves.

IN v CH [2025] EWFC 265 (08 July 2025)

W’s application for financial remedies. Trowell J was tasked with dividing the remaining assets of a couple who had previously enjoyed immense wealth that was significantly diminished due to the consequences of war.

BY v GC [2025] EWFC 226

Mr Nicholas Allen KC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge). In Financial Remedy proceedings, Nicholas Allen KC refused Daniels v Walker application to rely on expert evidence that valued the main business interests at less than the Single Joint Expert (SJE).

Read the journal

Related

Money Corner: Divorcing Couples and the Family Home – Five Tax Pitfalls

The aim of this article is to highlight the main pitfalls that pertain to the transfer/sale of the family home. Though these only come to light once lawyers are no longer involved, we can offer value to our clients by highlighting such issues before they discover them for themselves.

IN v CH [2025] EWFC 265 (08 July 2025)

W’s application for financial remedies. Trowell J was tasked with dividing the remaining assets of a couple who had previously enjoyed immense wealth that was significantly diminished due to the consequences of war.

BY v GC [2025] EWFC 226

Mr Nicholas Allen KC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge). In Financial Remedy proceedings, Nicholas Allen KC refused Daniels v Walker application to rely on expert evidence that valued the main business interests at less than the Single Joint Expert (SJE).

Latest

The Curious Case of CA 1989 Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3)

The Curious Case of CA 1989 Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3)

Paragraph 1 of CA 1989 Schedule 1 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief against parents’. Paragraph 2 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief for persons over eighteen’. As recent cases have demonstrated this structure causes complications.

The 2026 FRC Guide: What Practitioners Need to Know

The 2026 FRC Guide: What Practitioners Need to Know

Watch the recording of ‘The 2026 FRC Guide: What Practitioners Need to Know’, first broadcast on Wednesday 6th May 2026 with the authors of the new FRC Guide - HHJ Edward Hess, Nicholas Allen KC, Michael Allum, Lily Mottahedan and Rhys Taylor

Mazur in the Court of Appeal: the Judgment That Saved Half the Profession from Accidental Criminality

Mazur in the Court of Appeal: the Judgment That Saved Half the Profession from Accidental Criminality

The Court of Appeal rewrites the landscape of ‘conduct of litigation’ – Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369.

is curated by

The Leaders In Family Law Books & Software

EXPLORE OUR PRODUCTS