The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
The article includes a short explanation of the important features and case law in the two decisions in Re A and L  EWCA Civ 1205 and 1611. The decisions summarise how the Court of Appeal will treat judges' ex tempore decisions where important topics have not been spelt out.
The article outlines some uncomfortable questions which arise from the two decisions:
Is it the Court of Appeal's ability to understand the reasons in the judgment which matters or is it that of the parties?
If parties do not understand because of gaps in the judgment does this matter?
What is the significance of the appellate assumption about what judges know and think?
Does the length of the judge's experience (however long or short) help with an understanding of the judgment?
Is there any precise minimum content which must appear in any judgment?
Are litigants in person in person required to accept the adequacy of ex tempore reasons?