Watch | The new FPR provisions on NCDR. Fresh carrot, Bigger stick (but no mandation)
Watch the recording of HH Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB; Nicholas Allen KC, 29 Bedford Row; Martin Kingerley KC, 36 group; Rhys Taylor, 36 Group; Graeme Fraser, BBS Law & Karen Barham, Moore Barlow: 'The new FPR provisions on NCDR. Fresh carrot, Bigger stick (but no mandation)'.
Related
Non Court Dispute Resolution – What Difference Does a Year (and a Bit) Make?
Important revisions to both FPR Part 3 and Part 28 came into effect on 29 April 2024 when the material parts of the Family Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023 came into force.
The financial remedies pre-application protocol (annexed to PD 9A) was rewritten by the Financial Procedure Rule Committee
Justice that Heals: Lessons from Singapore’s Family Justice System
In the early 19th century, Britain was importing tea from China and financing the trade by illegally exporting opium (grown in British-controlled India) to China. The British East India Company required a port along the India–China maritime route to support this ‘commerce’ and to counter growing Dutch influence in
DR Corner: Thinking Outside the Box – Two Different Forms of NCDR
On a number of occasions when sitting, Stephen heard Dr Freda Gardner, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, say in evidence as an expert witness: ‘the issues in this family should never have developed to a point where this litigation became necessary’. Then, one day, they met outside the court environment, and he
Related
Non Court Dispute Resolution – What Difference Does a Year (and a Bit) Make?
Important revisions to both FPR Part 3 and Part 28 came into effect on 29 April 2024 when the material parts of the Family Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023 came into force.
The financial remedies pre-application protocol (annexed to PD 9A) was rewritten by the Financial Procedure Rule Committee
Justice that Heals: Lessons from Singapore’s Family Justice System
In the early 19th century, Britain was importing tea from China and financing the trade by illegally exporting opium (grown in British-controlled India) to China. The British East India Company required a port along the India–China maritime route to support this ‘commerce’ and to counter growing Dutch influence in
DR Corner: Thinking Outside the Box – Two Different Forms of NCDR
On a number of occasions when sitting, Stephen heard Dr Freda Gardner, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, say in evidence as an expert witness: ‘the issues in this family should never have developed to a point where this litigation became necessary’. Then, one day, they met outside the court environment, and he
Latest
In Defence of Legal Fee Loans: The Economics of Access to Justice
The recent High Court judgment of Peel J in 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘷 𝘓𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 [2025] EWFC 89 has renewed focus on the role of legal fee lending in family proceedings. This coincides with significant judicial commentary about funding arrangements, including notable judgments in 𝘋𝘚𝘋 𝘷 𝘔𝘑𝘞 and 𝘓𝘐 𝘷 𝘍𝘛.
Final Reflections on Standish: Was It All Worthwhile?
If asked, Mr Standish may say that three rounds of litigation, with another to follow, were worth it – Mrs Standish, perhaps not. But for lawyers, with many questions left unanswered, and a feeling that the opportunity to settle the law on matrimonialisation with clarity and certainty has passed us by,
OS v DT and Post-Separation Income: Fairness Trumps Inflexibility
In ‘Post-Separation Income: Has Rossi Survived Waggott and Standish?’ (5 February 2025), Nicholas Allen KC considered the potential impact of Waggott v Waggott [2018] 2 FLR 406 on the argument that income (or the assets or capital generated therefrom) earned in or referable to the first 12 months post-separation should