De Gafforj (Appeal – Hadkinson Order) [2018] EWCA Civ 2070
Judgment date: 20 September 2018
Related
WX v HX [2023] EWFC 279 (B)
Judgment date: 21 December 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2023/279
Mr Recorder Day’s judgment in a case involving complex procedural history, intervenors, non-disclosure and a ‘fragile’ business valuation. Of note is Recorder Day’s inclusion of his earlier decision to refuse a Hadkinson order. Recorder
            
        WJB v HJM [2024] EWFC 116 (B)
Judgment date: 15 February 2024
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/116.html
District Judge Ashworth. This was an application by W for a Hadkinson order preventing H from pursuing his application to vary an order for periodical payments made in 2017 (‘the order’). The order provided
            
        
            Hadkinson Orders: the Need to Show Restraint
This article addresses ‘Hadkinson’ orders (Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER 567), in light of several recent cases handed down over a short period of time, highlighting the potential limitations as to their availability, namely:
 * Williams v Williams [2023] EWHC 3098 (Fam) – Moor J
 * WX v HX [2023] EWFC 279
            
        Read the journal
                    
                        
                        
                            
                                Financial Remedies Journal – 2025 Issue 2 | Summer
                            
                        Related
WX v HX [2023] EWFC 279 (B)
Judgment date: 21 December 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2023/279
Mr Recorder Day’s judgment in a case involving complex procedural history, intervenors, non-disclosure and a ‘fragile’ business valuation. Of note is Recorder Day’s inclusion of his earlier decision to refuse a Hadkinson order. Recorder
            
        WJB v HJM [2024] EWFC 116 (B)
Judgment date: 15 February 2024
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/116.html
District Judge Ashworth. This was an application by W for a Hadkinson order preventing H from pursuing his application to vary an order for periodical payments made in 2017 (‘the order’). The order provided
            
        
            Hadkinson Orders: the Need to Show Restraint
This article addresses ‘Hadkinson’ orders (Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER 567), in light of several recent cases handed down over a short period of time, highlighting the potential limitations as to their availability, namely:
 * Williams v Williams [2023] EWHC 3098 (Fam) – Moor J
 * WX v HX [2023] EWFC 279
            
        Latest
Promises Unkept: Unpaid Child Maintenance and the Price of Inaction
Unpaid child maintenance remains one of the most persistent and under-addressed financial injustices affecting separated families in England and Wales. The failures of the CMS destabilise the very integrity of financial provision for children post-separation.
            
        
            Finality and Funding: a Further Thought on CC v UU Concerning the Availability of LSPOs for Enforcement Proceedings
In the case of CC v UU, concerning post-final order LSPOs, did Peel J fall into error? Should the judgment have been decided differently?
            
        
            She Who Laughs Last? Pets, Perpetuities, and Other Problems with the Last Will and Testament of Taylor A. Swift.
Taylor Swift's 'Anti-Hero' may be the only pop song to feature a contentious probate dispute. This article considers the drafting problems of Taylor Swift's Will from the perspective of the law of England and Wales.