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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
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...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

No Second Bite of the Cherry

Sep 29, 2018, 16:33 PM
Slug : no-second-bite-of-the-cherry
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 27, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85423

Dennis North, 70, appealed against a district judge's decision in 2006 to award a lump sum of £202,000 from his retirement fund to his ex-wife, Jean North, whom he divorced in 1978. Mrs North, 64, had left him and their three children for another man and the couple had come to a financial settlement which gave Mrs North a 'reasonable' lifestyle. When her finances took a turn for the worse, partly as a result of her own 'lifestyle choices' she returned to the county court to vary the terms of the original order. That was later upheld in the High Court. The Court of Appeal ruled on 25 July that the second award was 'fundamentally flawed'. Mrs North might still be due 'some modest award' from her former husband, but it would not approach the six-figure sum that she had previously been granted: 'The prodigal former wife cannot hope to turn to a former husband in pursuit of a legal remedy, whatever may be her hope that he might, out of charity, come to her rescue.' The Court stated that she might still be entitled to 'some modest award' which will be decided at the end of July. For further information see September [2007] Fam Law.

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