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
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
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...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles
Authors

Thum v Thum [2019] EWFC 25

Apr 25, 2019, 15:05 PM
Practice and procedure – Disclosure – Disclosure order – Non-compliance – FLR 4.1(6)/ s 31F)(6), Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
The husband’s application under FPR 4.1(6) and/or s 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 for an order varying or revoking the disclosure order was refused.
Slug :
Meta Title : Thum v Thum [2019] EWFC 25
Meta Keywords : Practice and procedure – Disclosure – Disclosure order – Non-compliance – FLR 4.1(6)/ s 31F)(6), Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 24, 2019, 23:00 PM
Article ID :

(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 April 2019)

Practice and procedure – Disclosure – Disclosure order – Non-compliance – FLR 4.1(6)/ s 31F)(6), Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984

The husband’s application under FPR 4.1(6) and/or s 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 for an order varying or revoking the disclosure order was refused.

 


For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.


Neutral Citation Number: [2019] EWFC 25

Case No: ZC15D04127

IN THE FAMILY COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 16/04/2019

Before :

MR JUSTICE MOSTYN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

CATIA MARION THUM
Applicant

- and -

OLIVER THUM

Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rebecca Carew Pole (instructed by Katz Partners LLP) for the Applicant
Philip Marshall QC (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 10 April 2019


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

.............................

MR JUSTICE MOSTYN

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children of the family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

 

Judgment: Thum v Thum [2019] EWFC 25

 

Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Practice and Procedure
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from