Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
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