Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDY/ ENFORCEMENT G v A (No 2) [2011] EWHC 2380 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:13 PM
A summary of this financial remedy/enforcement case [2011] EWHC 2380
Slug : 2011EWHC2380No2
Meta Title : G v A (No 2) [2011] EWHC 2380 (Fam)
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 29, 2011, 12:50 PM
Article ID : 97301
(Family Division; Peter Jackson J; 23 March 2011)
Enforcement of Munby's order in Re N; A v G and N [2010] 1 FLR 272; see also two related cases under related articles tab above. In the face of further procrastination by the father and Pelling, the mother applied for writ preventing the father from leaving jurisdiction until payment of relevant sum (father due to travel to Hong Kong and China). Court did not make this order, but did order seizure of passport. Judge found father was in default of Horowitz order. No good reason for default. Court made limited freezing order and disclosure order but returned father's passport.
Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from