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
Authors

COSTS/FAMILY PROVISION: Sherrington v Sherrington [2006] EWCA Civ 1784

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : sherrington-v-sherrington-2006-ewca-civ-1784
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 16, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 87979

(Rix and Moore-Bick LJJ; Waller LCJ; 29 December 2006)

Given that the judge had concluded that the first wife and the son, the plaintiffs, had failed to get permission to bring proceedings out of time only because of concessions made by the defendant second wife in the course of the hearing, he had erred in awarding the second wife 25% of her costs. By reason of the second wife's concessions, which had established reasonable financial provision for them, the first wife and the son were effective winners. However, the second wife had won the claim based on an alleged contractual obligation to make financial provision for a divorced wife. Because the first wife and the son had failed to focus their claim sufficiently, the first wife and the son were to receive 40% of their costs of the family provision claim; the second wife was to receive all her costs of the contractual claim.

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