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
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...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF: Re G (Maintenance Pending Suit) [2006] EWHC 1834 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : re-g-maintenance-pending-suit-2006-ewhc-1834-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 13, 2006, 04:50 AM
Article ID : 87965

(Family Division; Munby J; 13 July 2006)

Rejecting cross-appeals against an order for maintenance pending suit, the court found that the judge had been entitled to conclude that the husband had not satisfied him that the alleged reduction in his bonus was bona fide; the husband had wholly failed to demonstrate that his income had in fact been reduced. The judge had clearly been entitled to find that this was an exceptional" case in which it ws appropriate to include legal costs in the order for maintenance pending suit. The judge had however been plainly wrong not to have made provision for the costs of the child's forthcoming bar mitzvah. The court considered the appropriate figure, given the family's wealth and social and business standing, to be in the region of £45,000."

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