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
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
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