Section 25 factors meaning

STOP PRESS: The Financial Remedies Guide 2026, issued on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice Peel and His Honour Judge Hess with the approval of the President of the Family Division, now replaces and supersedes: Statement on efficient conduct for High Court judge cases (1 February 2016) Statement on efficient conduct for hearings below High Court judge level (11 January 2022) FRC Primary Principles (11 January 2022) FRC notice: electronic bundles (19 April 2022) Allocation of cases to High Court judge level (21 May 2024) This document is being updated to reflect these changes. See News Analysis: Financial Remedies Guide consolidates existing guidance and efficiency statements. The flowchart charts the standard-procedure route to a final hearing after a financial remedy application. It covers FDR directions, open proposals and bundles; Form H1 costs, disclosure, section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 factors, available orders, and the below High Court judge level efficiency statement. Further resources: Financial provision—practice and procedure—overview;...

In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Know-how/R&D Patents Designs IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off In Iconix v Dream Pairs [2025] UKSC 25, the Supreme Court confirmed that confusion arising after a purchase can constitute an actionable trade mark infringement, and need not be examined only in a further transaction. The Court also dismissed the contention that external, post-sale factors must be ignored when comparing a mark with a sign. Although it identified those submissions as legal errors, the Supreme Court still allowed the appeal. It held the Court of Appeal erred in branding the trial judge’s findings irrational, and had no proper basis to replace the judge’s multifactorial assessment on similarity and the likelihood of confusion with its own. This ruling entrenches post-sale confusion as a recognised head of infringement, and underscores the limits on...

Directors’ duties—fundamentals For the first time, the key duties of directors formulated by the courts were expressly set out in statutory form in sections 171–177 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), thereby consolidating existing judge‑made principles. A full account of these statutory obligations—referred to as the general duties—can be found in Practice Note: Directors’ duties—fundamentals. The first four general duties are set out below: a duty to act in line with the company’s constitution and to use conferred powers solely for their proper purposes as intended by that constitution a duty to act, in good faith, in the manner the director believes is most likely to promote the company’s success for the benefit of all members collectively, while, in doing so, having regard to various factors a duty to exercise independent judgment a duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence With respect to the fifth, sixth and seventh general duties, consult Practice Note: Directors’ duties—directors’ interests: CA...

This Practice Note examines when reinstatement will be ordered as a remedy under section 112 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) following a finding of unfair dismissal. The key factors are: whether the employee seeks reinstatement; whether returning them is feasible in practice; and whether doing so would be fair in the circumstances. It also covers what a reinstatement order must contain, its legal effect once made, and how arrears of salary and associated benefits are to be quantified. Where an employer does not comply, in whole or in part, a further hearing on reinstatement will be convened. At that stage, the tribunal assesses whether compliance was in fact practicable and, if so, calculates an additional compensatory award under ERA 1996, s 117 in consequence of the failure to honour a reinstatement or re-engagement order. Reinstatement is one of the orders available to a tribunal under ERA 1996, s 112 after an unfair dismissal finding. For analysis...

This Practice Note examines the American Cyanamid test used by the courts to determine whether to grant temporary injunctive relief. It sets out the sources of the court’s authority and the principles that inform a judge’s discretion when considering an interim injunction application under those guidelines. For wider guidance on injunctive relief, including the distinction between interim and final, and between prohibitory and mandatory orders, see Practice Note: Injunctions—guiding principles. For interim remedies focused on preserving assets and/or evidence, see: Freezing injunctions—guiding principles Proprietary freezing injunctions Search and imaging orders—guiding principles Interim delivery up orders and preservation of property This content should also be read in conjunction with: Interim injunctions—on notice applications Interim injunctions—without notice applications Interim injunctions—drafting the order Guiding principles for interim injunctions The jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions arises from section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 25.1(1)(a), as outlined in Practice Note: Injunctions—guiding principles—The...

This document offers general guidance on applying for financial provision after an overseas divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, or following an overseas dissolution under Sch 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Your family lawyer can provide advice tailored to your circumstances. Basics Under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984), or the equivalent provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), spouses or civil partners whose marriage or civil partnership has been brought to an end abroad and who have a connection with England and Wales may seek the financial remedies available in England and Wales, where the court considers it appropriate to make such orders. Either party can apply where the marriage or civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled, or where a legal separation has been granted overseas, unless that party has subsequently remarried or entered into a new civil partnership. Any overseas divorce or dissolution, annulment, or legal separation must be...

This document offers general guidance on applying to the court for maintenance on divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership. Your family lawyer can provide tailored advice based on your circumstances and will be able to address your specific situation. Who can apply for maintenance? Either spouse or civil partner may apply to the court for a spousal or civil partner maintenance order, also referred to as a periodical payments order. The party making the application is the applicant; the other party is the respondent respectively. Save in certain specified situations, a prospective applicant must consider with a mediator whether the dispute could be resolved by non-court dispute resolution. All applicants must meet these requirements before starting proceedings unless a stated exception applies, and the court will expect any respondent to have attended a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) beforehand, as part of the process. What happens when the application is received by the court? When either party issues an application, the court automatically...

The court holds comprehensive jurisdiction to sanction or decline a financial remedy consent order embodying the parties’ bargain (see section 33A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 9.26). Yet the court is neither ‘a rubber stamp’ nor a ‘bloodhound’ or ‘forensic ferret’ (see Pounds v Pounds and L v L). Its jurisdiction cannot be excluded. The court undertakes an autonomous and independent evaluation to enable it to discharge and fulfil its statutory duties by reference to the relevant factors set out in the MCA 1973, s 25...