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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Currey v Currey [2006] EWCA Civ 1338

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : currey-v-currey-2006-ewca-civ-1338
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 30, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 87909

(Court of Appeal; Chadwick and Wilson LJJ and Lindsay J; 18 October 2006)

The word 'exceptional' was obstructing the proper exercise of the jurisdiction to include a costs allowance within an order for interim periodical payments. The initial overarching enquiry was into whether the applicant for the costs allowance could demonstrate that he or she could not reasonably procure legal advice by any other means. Although this was a necessary condition of making an allowance, it would not always be a sufficient condition. The subject-matter of the proceedings would always be relevant, as would the reasonableness of the applicants stance in the proceedings. A variety of other features might also be relevant, such as, in the instant case, the fact of a pre-existing costs debt owed by the applicant to the former spouse. Contrary to a dictum in TL v ML (Ancillary Relief: Claim Against Assets of Extended Family) [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam), [2006] 1 FLR 1263, the judge who presided over the financial dispute resolution (FDR) appointment could not hear an application to extend such a costs allowance beyond the FDR, as that would amount to further involvement, prohibited under r 2.61E(2) and (8) of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from