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
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...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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