David Salter

PRACTICE NOTES

Family financial enforcement against companies and trusts: Prest v Petrodel, piercing the corporate veil, joinder of trustees/beneficiaries/directors, and foreign trust judgment enforcement (England and Wales)

This Practice Note highlights key factors when seeking to enforce a family court order against a company or trust—often described as ‘piercing the corporate veil’—including scenarios with a foreign element. It also considers when a trustee, beneficiary or company director should be joined to the proceedings. Enforcement against a company A company is a separate legal person from its owner or controller. The same concept applies to trust property held by a trustee for beneficiaries. See: Enforcement against a trust and Piercing the corporate veil. Where the court is able to enforce a financial order directly against the assets of a company or trust, this is commonly termed ‘piercing the corporate veil’. In effect, the court sets aside the barrier created by interposing a company or trust so that an order can be enforced where the party has no sufficient assets in their own name. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prest v Petrodel Resources, such orders are now very tightly circumscribed. Enforcement proceedings relating to a family business or family...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Family jurisdiction in England and Wales: statutory bases, High Court’s residual inherent jurisdiction over children, and post‑Brexit transitional rules and Hague conventions

This Practice Note This Practice Note explains the foundations of the courts’ jurisdiction in family proceedings, and the limited situations where a matter may proceed under the court’s inherent jurisdiction rather than under statute. That inherent power is predominantly engaged in children proceedings and in cases before the High Court. The consequences of Brexit, including any transitional arrangements, are also addressed. At 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020—the conclusion of the transition/implementation period following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (known in UK law as ‘IP completion day’)—key transitional measures ended and substantial changes took effect across the UK’s legal framework. This has ramifications for practitioners identifying which courts have jurisdiction to resolve a dispute. For guidance, see also Transitional provisions and Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. After IP completion day, the EU instruments that previously governed jurisdiction no longer apply, subject to transitional provisions (see below)...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Family legal aid in England and Wales: duty to advise, costs protection, translation costs, and costs orders against the Lord Chancellor

Failure to advise on legal aid eligibility may amount to negligence, even where a firm does not carry out legal aid work, and a client’s potential eligibility for legal aid must be considered at the outset of the case In David Truex Solicitor (a firm) v Kitchin, the court, addressing costs, found the client had not been informed about the availability of legal aid at the earliest opportunity and underlined that solicitors must assess eligibility from the start. The client was entitled to recover all sums paid to the solicitors, save for a small amount for the initial conference. See Practice Note: Taking initial instructions from family clients. Practitioners must take into account their client’s attributes, needs and circumstances. For additional guidance, see Practice Note: The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regime for family lawyers. As a consequence of the reforms introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPOA 2012), legal aid in family matters is now available only in very limited situations, chiefly: where there is domestic abuse (with limitations); and in public children cases (again, with limitations)...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Forum non conveniens, anti-suit and Hemain injunctions: staying family proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction (England and Wales)

This Practice Note This Practice Note explains the narrow circumstances in which the court may pause proceedings (whether or not there are concurrent proceedings in another jurisdiction) by exercising its inherent jurisdiction. It also outlines the relatively unusual situations in which the court may grant an anti-suit or Hemain injunction. The Brexit transition/implementation period concluded at 11pm on 31 December 2020, known in UK law as ‘IP completion day’. For practical guidance on the implications of Brexit, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. The court has an independent role and responsibility to assess and determine whether it has jurisdiction. A party may seek a stay under the inherent jurisdiction by relying on the principle of forum non conveniens. This power pre-dates the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (DMPA 1973). The court exercises this jurisdiction with restraint, and its inherent authority is not displaced by the DMPA 1973. See also Practice Notes: Staying proceedings under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 and Staying concurrent EU proceedings...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Freezing (Mareva) orders in family financial remedy proceedings: grounds, evidence, FPR 2010/PD20A procedure, worldwide relief, without notice practice, order drafting, allocation and costs (England and Wales)

STOP PRESS: The Financial Remedies Guide 2026, issued on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice Peel (National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court) and His Honour Judge Hess (Deputy National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court), with the President of the Family Division’s approval, now supersedes and replaces the following: the Statement on the efficient conduct of financial remedy cases allocated to a High Court judge whether sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice or elsewhere (1 February 2016) (the High Court judge level efficiency statement) the Statement on the efficient conduct of financial remedy hearings proceeding in the Financial Remedies Court below High Court judge level (11 January 2022) (the below High Court judge level efficiency statement) the Financial Remedies Court Primary Principles document (11 January 2022) the Notice from the Financial Remedies Court: electronic bundles (19 April 2022) the Allocation of financial remedies cases to High Court judge level (21 May 2024) This document is being revised to reflect these updates. See News Analysis: Financial Remedies Guide consolidates existing guidance and efficiency statements...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Information hearings under CPR Part 71 in family proceedings: applications, service, questioning before officer or judge, and committal for non-compliance (England and Wales)

Practice Note This Practice Note sets out the requirements for applying for an order to obtain information from a judgment debtor—formerly termed an ‘oral examination’—including the criteria for making such an order, the procedure, hearing arrangements, and the steps available if the debtor does not comply. This order assists enforcement rather than constituting an enforcement method. For practitioners contemplating enforcement, a recurring difficulty is limited knowledge of the respondent’s (debtor’s) income or assets. One option is to seek an order compelling the debtor to be questioned about their income, assets and liabilities. The previous expression ‘oral examination’ has been replaced by applications for orders to obtain information from judgment debtors (known as ‘information hearings’), following the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 33.23, which imported the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, Pt 71 into family proceedings (with modifications). Note that an information hearing serves only as an aid to enforcement, not as an enforcement mechanism. It can also lead to cost savings by revealing assets and guiding the choice of the most suitable enforcement method...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Interim Remedies in Family Proceedings under FPR 2010 Pt 20: Applications, Evidence, Without Notice Orders, Undertakings and Judicial Allocation (England and Wales)

This Practice Note sets out the process for obtaining an interim remedy under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 20, covering jurisdictional questions, evidential requirements, applications made without notice, and undertakings. It also notes requirements as to evidence and addresses without notice applications. For the range of interim orders the court may make, see Practice Note: Interim orders under FPR 2010, Pt 20. Various forms of interim relief beyond those expressly mentioned in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 20 can be pursued within family proceedings. The omission of a particular remedy from FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 20 does not limit the court’s existing authority to grant it. For further guidance on other common interim remedies, consult the following Practice Notes: Procedure for maintenance pending suit Funding—legal services orders and costs allowances Procedure for an application for a non-molestation order Procedure for an application for an occupation order Procedure Applications for interim remedies under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 20 are governed by the FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 18 procedure...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Judgment summons under the Debtors Act 1869 to enforce family financial orders: scope, procedure, criminal standard, human rights and committal powers (England and Wales)

Judgment summons This Practice Note explains the criteria and process for deploying a judgment summons to enforce an order arising from family proceedings, with specific reference to human rights issues. Where a debtor is able to satisfy the liability yet refuses or fails to do so, the court may contemplate making a committal order. A judgment summons is issued under the Debtors Act 1869 (DA 1869), and it requires the debtor to attend before the court. Provided the debtor has, or has previously had, the means to pay and nevertheless refuses or neglects to make payment, the court may direct imprisonment for a period not exceeding six weeks. The mandated procedural steps must be observed strictly and in full. In Prest v Prest, the Court of Appeal determined that the standard of proof is the criminal standard, and that the debtor cannot be compelled to give evidence (see also Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 33.14(4)). The objective of an order for committal pursuant to a judgment summons is to procure payment of the sum due, and to secure satisfaction of the amount outstanding owed...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Jurisdiction in cross‑border children proceedings post‑Brexit: 1996 Hague Convention, FLA 1986, residual jurisdiction, transfers and procedure, with Brussels II bis transitional regime and 2025 Presidential guidance

This Practice Note provides guidance on jurisdiction in children proceedings, having regard to the implications of Brexit. It explains how jurisdiction is to be determined in children proceedings in the context of Brexit. It covers both the regime operating from 1 January 2021 and the arrangements that applied up to IP completion day (31 December 2020), including when transitional provisions apply. See: Jurisdiction on and after 1 January 2021 and Jurisdiction prior to IP completion day (31 December 2020) and where transitional provisions apply. It also outlines the procedure to follow when jurisdiction is in issue in children proceedings, and judicial guidance. This includes the President of the Family Division’s Guidance: Transfer of proceedings, issued on 21 January 2025, which replaces the April 2016 guidance on transfers under Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and parental responsibility matters (Brussels II bis or Brussels IIA), and Articles 8 and/or 9 of the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (the 1996 Hague Convention)...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in UK family cases with EU connections issued before IP completion day: transitional application of Brussels II bis, Brussels I and the EU Maintenance Regulation

Practice Note This Practice Note explains how Brussels I and Brussels II bis apply and the breadth of their reach for jurisdiction in EU family proceedings, including deciding which Member State’s courts are competent. It further offers direction on the EU Maintenance Regulation and how it dovetails with other rules. The effects of Brexit, with a focus on transitional measures, are examined as well, in this context for practitioners considering jurisdictional issues. At 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020, the UK’s transition/implementation period following departure from the EU ended. From that moment (known in UK legislation as ‘IP completion day’), core transitional schemes ceased and wide-ranging alterations came into force across the UK’s legal framework. This affects advisers assessing which forum has authority to hear a dispute. For assistance, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. For guidance concerning matters linked to Denmark, non‑EU jurisdictions, and proceedings with UK‑EU connections commenced after IP completion day, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction in overseas cases including cases with UK‑EU connections issued after IP completion day...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Means of Payment Orders for Periodical Maintenance: definition, applications, enforcement methods and variation (including AEOs and court collection)—England and Wales

A means of payment order (MPO) requires the payer under a ‘qualifying periodical maintenance order’ to make payments by a specified method, or directs that an attachment of earnings order (AEO) be made. These provisions offer the recipient greater assurance about the timing and method of payment, particularly where an AEO is imposed. An MPO can also provide that payments under the relevant order are paid into court (including by a specified method), or are made in accordance with arrangements under section 30 of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991). Only the Family Court may exercise these latter powers. Qualifying periodical maintenance order A qualifying maintenance order is an order of the High Court or the Family Court that obliges one party to make periodical payments to the other, made while the paying party is ordinarily resident in England and Wales. This includes an interim maintenance order, and an order that has been discharged if arrears remain recoverable under it...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Non-party disclosure and inspection in family proceedings under FPR 2010: procedure, case law, alternative routes and public interest immunity (England and Wales)

This Practice Note explains the process and methodology for securing a disclosure or inspection order against a person who is not a party to family proceedings under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), including illustrative examples from case law. It also outlines other avenues by which a disclosure order can be obtained, together with the implications where public interest immunity is claimed. For practical assistance on the exchange of information between criminal and family agencies and jurisdictions, see the Practice Note: The disclosure of information between family and criminal agencies and jurisdictions. Background The FPR 2010 contain no mechanism for inspection (previously called production) appointments, which existed under the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (FPR 1991). Under that earlier regime, the respondent to the application was required to attend before the court and bring the documents identified in the order. In contrast, under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 21.2 there is no obligation on the respondent to appear at court to produce documents; instead, FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 21.2 provides for an application to be made to the court under any Act seeking disclosure from a person who is not a party to the proceedings. The disclosure sought may relate to...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Orders for Sale under MCA 1973/CPA 2004: Powers, Interim Routes, Third-Party Interests, Drafting and Enforcement including Execution of Documents (England and Wales)

Practice Note This Practice Note outlines when the court may direct the sale of property in proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) or the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), together with practical points when pursuing a sale. It also describes the limited avenues for seeking an interim order for sale, and the steps to take where one party does not execute a conveyance, together with the procedure to follow. By virtue of MCA 1973, s 24A (and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 equivalent), the court may order the sale of property—real or personal, eg a car (Joy v Joy-Morancho (No 2))—provided it is accompanied by one of the following: a legal services payment order a lump sum order a property adjustment order a secured periodical payments order An order for sale can be made at the same time as the primary order to which it is ancillary, or at any subsequent time. Such an order may relate to property in which either or both parties holds an interest, whether in possession or in reversion...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Part 36 Offers in TOLATA 1996 Proceedings: Requirements, Timing, Acceptance, Withdrawal and Costs Consequences (England and Wales)

This Practice Note sets out the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, Part 36 offers made in relation to claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996). It addresses: the requirements and timing of a Part 36 offer withdrawing or amending an offer the costs consequences of Part 36 What is a Part 36 offer? A Part 36 offer is a proposal to resolve a claim, counterclaim or other additional claim (including any distinct part or issue), as well as an appeal or cross-appeal from a decision made at trial. When made in accordance with CPR Part 36, it carries specified costs consequences on acceptance. If it is not accepted, costs consequences may still follow, depending on the final outcome of the proceedings. Although either party may rely on a ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ offer to support a costs argument at the conclusion of a case, such non-compliant offers do not engage the Part 36 consequences, which establish a more formalised settlement regime...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Post‑Brexit enforcement of family maintenance orders in non‑EU and non‑transitional EU cases: England and Wales routes under Hague 2007 and UK reciprocal enforcement statutes

At 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020, the Brexit transition/implementation period that followed the UK’s exit from the EU came to a close. In UK law this is termed ‘IP completion day’, when the core interim arrangements ended and material changes took effect across the UK’s legal framework. This carries consequences for practitioners evaluating enforcement matters. For additional guidance, refer to Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. See also Practice Note: Jurisdiction EU—Impact of Brexit. The reciprocal arrangements in this Practice Note deal with the position as to: enforcement outside the EU enforcement in EU Member States after 31 December 2020 where transitional provisions provided for by the Jurisdiction and Judgment (Family) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/519, reg 8(2) (as amended) do not apply See also Practice Note: Enforcement with EU Member States. In every case, scrutinise the relevant statute/convention (and any associated statutory instrument) carefully, as adjustments to the general scheme may affect arrangements with particular countries, and countries are frequently added to or removed from those arrangements...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Post-Brexit family law jurisdiction in England and Wales: overseas and UK-EU cases after IP completion day—divorce, children, financial relief and enforcement

Jurisdiction in overseas cases This Practice Note offers direction on jurisdictional issues in overseas cases, including those with UK–EU connections issued after IP completion day and therefore not subject to the transitional arrangements. It explains when the courts of England and Wales may assume jurisdiction in family proceedings, in particular under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (DMPA 1973). At 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020, the Brexit transition/implementation period concluded following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. From that point (termed ‘IP completion day’ in UK law), key transitional arrangements ended and significant changes took effect across the UK’s legal framework. This has implications for practitioners assessing which court has jurisdiction to determine a dispute. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. For guidance on matters involving links with EU countries (other than Denmark) and UK proceedings to which transitional provisions apply (broadly, proceedings instituted before IP completion day), see Practice Note: Jurisdiction in cases with EU connections issued before IP completion day, including the sections on the Impact of Brexit and Transitional provisions...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Post-Brexit jurisdiction for divorce, judicial separation and nullity in England and Wales: DMPA 1973, competing jurisdictions, transitional EU rules, and same-sex marriages

This Practice Note This Practice Note explains the foundations of court jurisdiction for divorce and judicial separation proceedings both from 1 January 2021 onwards—see: Jurisdiction for divorce, judicial separation and nullity on or after 1 January 2021—and for earlier cases—see: Jurisdiction for divorce and judicial separation prior to 1 January 2021—reflecting the consequences of the UK leaving the EU. It also offers direction where there are rival jurisdictions. The Brexit transition/implementation period, following the UK’s exit from the EU, ended at 11 pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020. From that moment (labelled in UK legislation as ‘IP completion day’), key transitional provisions ceased and major alterations applied across the UK’s legal framework. This affects practitioners assessing which courts may assume jurisdiction over divorce and judicial separation. For added support, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. When multiple states could validly hear divorce proceedings, practitioners should carefully evaluate which forum may provide the most beneficial jurisdiction for the client...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Post-Brexit recognition and enforcement of EU maintenance decisions: transitional regime, direct and Central Authority routes, and the Maintenance Enforcement Business Centre (England and Wales)

Pre-IP completion day and transitional position in relation to proceedings in England and Wales and EU enforcement This Practice Note outlines the pre-IP completion day and transitional landscape for proceedings in England and Wales and EU enforcement, addressing the meaning of maintenance for international enforcement in an EU Member State, the relevant inward and outward procedures, the role of Central Authorities and the relevant statutory provisions, with regard to the implications of Brexit. It also provides practical guidance on the Maintenance Enforcement Business Centre. At 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020, the transition/implementation period following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU ended. At that moment (termed ‘IP completion day’ in UK law), key transitional measures expired and substantial changes took effect across the UK’s legal regime, with consequences for practitioners addressing enforcement issues. Under its transitional regime, the EU Maintenance Regulation remains important to practitioners in England and Wales for certain enforcement proceedings: see Background to the EU Maintenance Regulation. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Presumed Death (PDA 2013) Declarations and Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017: jurisdiction, applicants, procedure, effects and variation orders—England and Wales

The Presumption of Death Act 2013 (PDA 2013) The PDA 2013 came into force on 1 October 2014 and applies solely to England and Wales. Before its commencement, a common law rebuttable evidential presumption treated a person as dead after a seven-year absence, alongside a patchwork of statutory measures (eg section 19 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and section 37 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004)) setting out specific procedures for different aspects of a missing person’s property and affairs, under which a missing person might be presumed deceased. PDA 2013 created a single mechanism to obtain from the High Court (Family Division or Chancery Division) a declaration that a missing person is deemed to have died, effective for all purposes. The court must grant the declaration if satisfied that the missing person has died, or has not been known to be alive for at least seven years. Any declaration must also state the date and time of the person’s death. Where the court is satisfied the person has died, but is unsure at what point within the period the death occurred, ...

Family

PRACTICE NOTES

Procedural guide to TOLATA 1996 claims: CPR costs budgeting, disclosure, witness statements, expert evidence, bundles and enforcement (England and Wales)

This Practice Note introduces key procedural features of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, as they relate to claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996). The same provisions apply whether proceedings are issued under CPR Part 7 or CPR Part 8; see Practice Note: TOLATA 1996—when to use Part 7 and when to use Part 8. See also Practice Notes: TOLATA 1996—pre-action matters; TOLATA 1996—when to issue in the County Court and when to issue in the High Court; and TOLATA 1996—Part 36 offers. For practical guidance on the court’s approach to TOLATA 1996 claims, see Practice Note: Case law relating to TOLATA 1996 claims and Precedent: Specimen final orders under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Costs budgeting Disclosure and inspection Witness statements Expert evidence Costs budgeting Costs budgeting forms part of the court’s duty to regulate costs. Its purpose is to enable the court to supervise both the procedural steps to be taken and the expenditure to be incurred by the parties in any proceedings, thereby furthering the overriding objective...

Family

Practice Area

Panels

Membership

66 Contributions by David Salter

Call us on