Case Studies

On appeal from an occupation order excluding a father from a high-value family home under FLA 1996 s33(6), Poole J held that where occupation and interim child arrangements are inextricably linked, a judge is not required to apply the Children Act 1989 paramountcy principle or welfare checklist to the occupation decision itself, but must have the likely shape of revised child arrangements in contemplation when weighing s33(6)(c) (impact on the health, safety and well-being of the parties and any relevant child). Reading the ex tempore judgment below as a whole, the appellate court found the first instance judge had done so notwithstanding the absence of express sequencing, and dismissed the appeal on all grounds, including a ground on which permission was in fact granted.

A five-day final hearing concerning assets of over £20m, the majority illiquid business wealth, in which the wife sought to escape a valid pre-nuptial agreement on the basis that its full implementation would produce a highly uneven outcome. The court upheld the agreement, construed it narrowly, and confirmed that departure from a valid PNA is confined to a needs assessment, not a route back into sharing.

A second appeal concerning a child arrangements order for a young child, D. The Court of Appeal found the original judge's decision — that D should live with her mother — was fundamentally flawed because the judge had implicitly adopted findings of domestic abuse from a Cafcass officer's report without holding a fact-finding hearing, and because the Cafcass report itself failed to properly assess the impact of changing D's home and school. The order was set aside and the matter sent for a full rehearing.

The wife obtained a financial remedies order requiring the husband to transfer property to her. He did not comply. She was forced to return to court and apply to have him committed for contempt. A stark illustration that getting the order is not the end — enforcement is a separate battle entirely, and one that many litigants in person are completely unprepared for.

The foundational House of Lords case that established the framework all UK financial remedy cases are decided under. Two conjoined appeals — one involving a short marriage with significant wealth generated, one involving a 16-year marriage where the wife sacrificed her legal career. Together they defined the three principles courts apply today: needs, compensation, and sharing. In most ordinary cases, however, needs consume the entire pot — and sharing or compensation never arise.