Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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...
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from