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

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from