Dadourian Group v Simms [2008] EWHC 1784 (Ch)
Judgment date: 25 July 2008
Related
BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236
Peel J. Save for four specific matters, parties cannot refer to what happened at the pFDR. The Financial Remedies Court – Primary Principles paragraph 8 issued by Mostyn J and HHJ Hess goes too far by saying that the court should be told that offers were made and that an was indication given.
What Is the True Extent of FDR Privilege?
In L v O (Stay of Order; Hadkinson Order; Security for Costs) [2024] EWFC 6 (26 January 2024) Cobb J considered whether a judge hearing a Barder (or Thwaite) application can/should be made aware of what took place at the FDR appointment where the original order was agreed and
AP v BP & Ors (financial remedies – appeal – disclosure – privilege) [2023] EWFC 169
Judgment date: 09 March 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2023/169
HHJ Vincent. The facts are as stated in this summary. On the husband’s discovery of the wife’s agreement with the intervenors he sought disclosure of the first agreement. W and the intervenors asserted that it
Related
BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236
Peel J. Save for four specific matters, parties cannot refer to what happened at the pFDR. The Financial Remedies Court – Primary Principles paragraph 8 issued by Mostyn J and HHJ Hess goes too far by saying that the court should be told that offers were made and that an was indication given.
What Is the True Extent of FDR Privilege?
In L v O (Stay of Order; Hadkinson Order; Security for Costs) [2024] EWFC 6 (26 January 2024) Cobb J considered whether a judge hearing a Barder (or Thwaite) application can/should be made aware of what took place at the FDR appointment where the original order was agreed and
AP v BP & Ors (financial remedies – appeal – disclosure – privilege) [2023] EWFC 169
Judgment date: 09 March 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2023/169
HHJ Vincent. The facts are as stated in this summary. On the husband’s discovery of the wife’s agreement with the intervenors he sought disclosure of the first agreement. W and the intervenors asserted that it
Latest
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
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
The Court of Appeal rewrites the landscape of ‘conduct of litigation’ – Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369.