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
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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...
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