Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
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...
View all articles
Authors

M v M [2020] EWFC 41

Jun 25, 2020, 09:45 AM
Financial remedies – Divorce – Costs
The Family Court held that both parties emerged with about £5,000 each of liquid assets, having incurred nearly £600,000 of costs.
Slug :
Meta Title : M v M [2020] EWFC 41
Meta Keywords : Financial remedies – Divorce – Costs
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 24, 2020, 23:00 PM
Article ID :

(Family Court, Mr Robert Peel QC, 6 May 2020)

Financial remedies – Divorce – Costs

The Family Court held that both parties emerged with about £5,000 each of liquid assets, having incurred nearly £600,000 of costs.


For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.

 


This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the parties and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

 

Neutral citation number: [2020] EWFC 41
Case No: ZC18D0025

IN THE FAMILY COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr Robert Peel QC:

Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

______________________

Between:

RM
Petitioner/Applicant

and

TM
Respondent

_____________________

Thomas Brudenell (instructed by Levison Meltzer Pigott) for the Petitioner/Applicant Peter Wilkinson (instructed by Fletcher Day) for the Respondent Hearing dates: 1-6 May 2020

The hearing was conducted remotely by Zoom

______________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT APPROVED

______________________

Judgment: M v M [2020] EWFC 41

Categories :
  • Financial Remedies
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from