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

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