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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

Setting aside executory orders: a terrible fate for Thwaite?

Sep 29, 2018, 22:02 PM
Family Law, financial remedies, setting aside executory order, Thwaite v Thwaite, Barder v Barder (Caluori intervening), SR v HR [2018] EWHC 606 (Fam)
This article looks at the authority of Thwaite in detail, examines whether it survived the decision in Barder, and considers two recent cases where Thwaite was relied on. It concludes by suggesting that Mostyn J in SR v HR [2018] EWHC 606 (Fam) was right to doubt the correctness of the decision in Thwaite and suggests it is time it was given a decent burial.
Slug : setting-aside-executory-orders-a-terrible-fate-for-thwaite
Meta Title : Setting aside executory orders: a terrible fate for Thwaite?
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : Yes
Prioritise In Trending Articles : Yes
Date : Jul 11, 2018, 05:00 AM
Article ID : 117262
Family lawyers have long used Thwaite v Thwaite (1981) 2 FLR 280 to argue that the court has the power to set aside or decline to enforce a financial remedy order which remains executory (ie wholly or partly unimplemented) and where it would be inequitable for the order to remain in place or be enforced. Yet this makes no sense. The cure for an unimplemented order is implementation, not tearing it up and going back to square one. This supposed power to interfere with executory orders was unnecessary for the decision in Thwaite. The cases relied on in Thwaite provided no support for it. If it was that simple, we would have no such thing as a Barder event, as the order was executory in Barder v Barder (Caluori intervening) [1987] 2 FLR 480.

Michael Horton's article in the July 2018 issue of Family Law ([2018] Fam Law 884) looks at the authority of Thwaite in detail, examines whether it survived the decision in Barder, and considers two recent cases where Thwaite was relied on. It concludes by suggesting that Mostyn J in SR v HR [2018] EWHC 606 (Fam) was right to doubt the correctness of the decision in Thwaite and suggests it is time it was given a decent burial.
The full version of this article appears in the July 2018 issue of Family Law

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of Family Law journal. Please quote: 100482.
Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
questions
Provider : Coram Chambers
Product Bucket :
Load more comments
Comment by from