Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
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...
View all articles

FINANCIAL PROVISION: Re M (Freezing Injunction) [2006] 1 FLR 1031

Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : re-m-freezing-injunction-2006-1-flr-1031
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 17, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86947

(Family Division; Mr Stephen Bellamy QC; 17 October 2005)

Although the jurisdiction to grant a freezing order was wide, flexible and capable of innovation where circumstances demanded, where Parliament had laid down a statutory procedure for determining questions of maintenance pending suit, as well as other ancillary relief matters and that route was available to a spouse, then the courts jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under the Supreme Court Act 1981, s 37 should not be used or made available as a short cut to that payment. It would only be in the most exceptional cases where urgency demanded immediate payment to a spouse or children that the court would consider imposing such a term as part of a freezing order, and then only for the shortest possible duration until a hearing could resolve matters under the statutory regime laid down.

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