Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
In this issue: Practice and procedure Relationship breakdown Public children Transparency Cohabitants Financial provision Enforcement Court of Protection International children Updated content Daily and weekly news alerts Weekly highlights archive Practice and procedure Update to Standard Order 10.2 (short-form non-molestation order) Following a correction to Order 10.2 (short-form non-molestation order), Mr Justice Peel has refreshed the Standard Family Orders. The amended order now records the respondent’s address and date of birth to support police database entries. The updated Order 10.2, together with reissued yet unchanged Volumes 1 and 2, can be found here. HMCTS sets out progress and next steps for family courts HM Courts and Tribunals Service ( HMCTS) has posted a blog outlining advances across the family courts, including broader digital services, clearer guidance and improved support for vulnerable users. The...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Relationship breakdown Public children Private children Financial provision Daily and weekly news alerts New content Updated content New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure Family Procedure Rule Committee annual report: April 2024 to March 2025 The Family Procedure Rule Committee has issued its annual report, setting out work on revising the Family Procedure Rules 2010. It details reforms on domestic abuse, experts, case management, and early resolution across April 2024 to March 2025. Sir Andrew Mc Farlane, President of the Family Division, retires from the judiciary Sir Andrew Mc Farlane has stepped down as President of the Family Division, President of the Court of Protection and Head of Family Justice following a notable tenure. Since his 2018 appointment, he drove modernisation of the Family Court, advancing...
Re B- A ( Placement Order and Contact Order) [2026] EWCA Civ 356 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal emphasised that a central strand in recent rulings on post‑placement order contact is that decisions must turn on the particular facts of the individual case. It also noted that, in Re S ( Placement Order Contact) [2025] EWCA Civ 823, [2026] 1 FLR 48, the President highlighted the need for a tailored, bespoke appraisal of future contact arrangements in every matter, specific to each child......
In this issue: Practice and procedure Private children International children Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Df E publishes guidance on delivering kinship allowance pilot The Department for Education ( Df E) has released non‑statutory guidance on implementing the kinship allowance within the Kinship Zones pilot programme, starting on 1 April 2026. It sets out the policy framework for participating local authorities, including rules on eligibility for kinship carers, payment structures, interactions with other benefits, and arrangements for funding and assurance. During the pilot, eligible kinship carers with a special guardianship order or a lives with child arrangements order will receive a regular, tax‑free, non‑means‑tested allowance paid at the national minimum fostering allowance rate. The aim is to enhance placement stability and ease financial barriers to enduring kinship care. The guidance also details delivery...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Public children Private children Financial provision Costs International children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure Sir Andrew Mc Farlane’s final View from the President’s Chambers The closing View from Sir Andrew Mc Farlane, as President of the Family Division, sets out the nationwide implementation of the Child Focused Model, underpinned by £82 million, as a step-change in private law children work. It brings forward child-centred evidence, ensures more routine input from domestic abuse specialists, and shifts the programme from pilot status to standard practice. The President also notes better system outcomes, with case lengths falling even as demand grows, while calling for unwavering robust case management and firm...
Which proceedings are covered by the guidance? The guidance broadly applies to all proceedings concerning children that are issued in the Family Court, including those brought under: the Children Act 1989 the Family Law Act 1986 the Family Law Act 1996 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 It covers allocation across the whole of the Family Court judiciary, magistrates included, and is designed to ensure cases are directed to the appropriate judicial tier from the outset. The guidance does not apply to proceedings issued and heard in the Family Division of the High Court, or to matters reserved to be heard by a full judge of the Family Division (see paragraphs 16–19 and the Schedule to The President’s Guidance Jurisdiction of the Family Court: Allocation of Cases within the Family Court to High Court Judge Level and Transfer of Cases from the...
Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266 What are the practical implications of this case? First, the settled principle that costs should not ordinarily be ordered in children proceedings has been reasserted, clearly and at a high appellate level (para [64]). As this ruling makes plain, a costs award that departs from the established authorities in children matters is notably prone to being overturned on a successful appeal. Second, the judgment confirms that Lord Justice Jackson’s recent depiction of costs orders in children work as ‘exceptional’ (in the private law case Re E ( Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183, [2025] 2 FLR 141) aligns in substance with the Supreme Court’s labelling of them as ‘unusual’ (per Lady Hale in the public law case Re S [2015] UKSC 20, [2015] 2 FLR 208), the linguistic difference between those terms being ‘of no...
FPR 2010, PD Update No 1 of 2026 FPR 2010, PD 27A—court bundles Amendments to FPR 2010, PD 27A set out which preliminary documents ought, where feasible, to be agreed by the parties, and clearly specify responsibility for lodging each preliminary document......
In this issue: Practice and procedure Domestic abuse Private children Public children Financial provision International children Daily and weekly news alerts New content Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Professional negligence and limitation—the roll of impecuniosity in constructive knowledge ( Kay v Martineau Johnson) In Kay v Martineau Johnson ( A firm) [2026] EWCA Civ 224, the Court of Appeal examined how actual and constructive knowledge should be approached in claims against solicitors for professional negligence. It also addressed whether a lack of means is pertinent when assessing reasonable steps, including seeking expert opinion, for determining the date of knowledge. James Davies, barrister and Mediator at New Square Chambers, explores the practical consequences in Professional negligence and limitation—the roll of impecuniosity in constructive knowledge ( Kay v Martineau...
De La Sala and another v De La Sala and others [2026] EWCA Civ 282 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision pinpoints the correct yardstick for assessing “materiality” on applications to set aside a final financial remedy order. A failure to disclose is material where, absent that breach, the resultant order would have been “substantially” or “significantly” different. That approach faithfully aligns with Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] FLR 813 and Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2015] 2 FLR 1367. Crucially, the enquiry is not whether the entire foundation of the order has collapsed. Such terminology is confined to Barder applications—those involving unforeseen events that fundamentally vitiate the basis of an order (see Barder v Barder ( Caluori intervening) [1987] 2 FLR 480). The judgment further underscores that the obligation of full and frank disclosure is treated with utmost...
In this issue Practice and procedure Relationship breakdown Private children Public children Financial provision International children Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Family Procedure Rules Committee meeting minutes The Family Procedure Rule Committee has released the minutes from its meeting held on 2 February 2026. Relationship breakdown Determining validity of foreign marriages ( MA v WK) In MA v WK [2025] EWFC 499, the Family Court examined three linked applications under section 55(1) of the Family Law Act 1986 seeking declarations that the marriages were valid. Each applicant had a Nikkah in England that did not satisfy the Marriage Act 1949, yet argued that later (or alleged) registration in Pakistan conferred legal effect and made the marriages recognisable as foreign marriages in England and Wales. They contended that registration was the decisive act...
What is the FRG and why does it matter in practice? The FRG operates throughout the Financial Remedies Court at High Court judge, circuit judge, and district judge level. It is specifically designed to be read with the Overall structure of the Financial Remedies Court and the role and function of the lead judge ( March 2026 revision). The FRG is available here: Financial Remedies Guide 2026 (13 March 2026)......
In this issue: Practice and procedure Relationship breakdown Public children Private children Financial provision Enforcement International children Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New content New Q& A Useful information Practice and procedure Nuffield Family Justice Observatory briefing— AI in the family justice system The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory has released a briefing intended to stimulate open debate on how artificial intelligence might enhance the experiences of families and practitioners in the family justice system; see: AI in the family justice system. OPRC publishes response summary to Online Procedure Rules 2026 consultation The Online Procedure Rule Committee ( OPRC) has issued a synopsis of replies to its consultation on the draft Online Procedure ( Core Rules and Pilot Schemes) Rules 2026. The exercise drew 28 submissions from a varied cross-section of contributors, who were generally supportive of a principles-led framework for online proceedings. Nevertheless, respondents offered constructive remarks on several priority themes, including digital inclusion...
Re XX v GH ( Legal Services Act 2007 Exemption) [2026] EWFC 51 ( B) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling of HHJ Farquhar in Re XX v GH ( Legal Services Act 2007 Exemption) [2026] EWFC 51 ( B) underscores that, while the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP ( The Solicitors Regulation and The Law Society of England and Wales, intervening) [2025] EWHC 2341 ( KB) ( Mazur) is awaited, family courts will not regard exemptions under LSA 2007, Sch 3—by which a court may permit a non-authorised person to conduct litigation or hold a right of audience in particular proceedings—as a convenient default. Following Mr Justice Sheldon’s judgment in Mazur, mere oversight by a solicitor no longer suffices, and absent litigation rights, a chartered legal executive cannot conduct...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Public children Private children Financial provision Enforcement International children Deprivation of liberty Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New content Updated content Content spotlight—court bundles New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure New FPR 2010, PD 27A on bundles now in force The revised Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Direction on court bundles— FPR 2010, PD 27A ( Family proceedings: court bundles)—took effect on 2 March 2026, completely replacing the former Practice Direction. Compliance with FPR 2010, PD 27A is required to ensure consistent practice across England and Wales, in both the Family Court and the Family Division of the High Court, for the preparation and filing of court bundles. From 2 March 2026, adherence is compulsory for every hearing, with no...
Re Y ( Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38 What are the practical implications of this case? The President made it plain in this judgment at para [72] that he was sufficiently troubled by what had occurred in Re C [2023] EWHC 345 ( Fam), by the subsequent cases already mentioned, and by Re Y itself, that he would go further and set out firm guidance on the instruction of expert psychological witnesses in children proceedings. In future, when scrutinising psychologists’ CVs, practitioners must take particular care to confirm that the proposed expert is duly registered with the Health and Care Professions Council ( HCPC) or is chartered by the British Psychological Society ( BPS), thereby ensuring that the expert is suitably qualified and subject to professional regulation. Thorough familiarity with Re C, P v M [2023] EWFC 254, O v C...
Medway Council v The Father and another [2026] EWHC 236 ( Fam) What are the practical implications of the case? The practical implications of this case are as follows: a prompt to practitioners that a parent with parental responsibility for a child under 16 can agree to that child being deprived of liberty, ‘provided that said parental consent does not leave that child without safeguards’ in evaluating the ‘zone of parental responsibility’, age is pertinent but not conclusive. Ms Justice Henke stated the ‘zone of parental responsibility’ is fact-specific and ‘it is more appropriate to consider the characteristics of the individual child in question than to compare them to a hypothetical child of the same age’. Henke J further confirmed that the ‘zone of parental responsibility constricts as the child is able to make decisions for themselves’ and that ‘what falls within the zone of...
What is the background? Revisions to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 ( FPR 2010), most notably Practice Direction 27A concerning court bundles, take effect from 2 March 2026. There are no transitional measures, so the changes govern all family proceedings from that date, regardless of when they were issued. See News Analysis: New FPR 2010, PD 27A on bundles—what are the main changes? FPR 2010, PD 27A prescribes the standard practice for hearings in the Family Court and the Family Division of the High Court. It applies to every hearing before a judge sitting in the Family Division of the High Court, as well as all hearings in the Family Court......
BS v HC [2026] EWFC 20 ( B) What are the practical implications of this case? The most notable practical effect is that a non‑matrimonial portion of a pension can still be matrimonialised where there is a shared plan that it will be brought into future use and enjoyment, coupled with the other spouse acting in reliance on that plan to their detriment. HHJ Hess explained that the ‘actual use and enjoyment’ criterion in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, [2025] 2 FLR 489 should not be read strictly when the asset under consideration is a pension, because, at the point of the court’s assessment, pensions will usually not yet have been accessed (para [34]). Helpfully, the judgment gives a clear illustration via a hypothetical exchange between spouses, for example: ‘if I put my £1m cash into buying a family home in joint names, will you...
In this issue: Private children Public children Financial provision International children Court of Protection Daily and weekly news alerts New content Updated content Useful information Private children Parental alienation and unregulated experts ( Re Y ( Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach)) In Re Y ( Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew Mc Farlane, determined a Part 18 application under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 ( FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. The mother sought to reopen and set aside 2019 findings that she had alienated the children from their father, causing them emotional harm. The earlier case stemmed from cross‑allegations of serious domestic abuse. Before any fact‑finding on those issues, the court received and accepted extensive material from an unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill. Relying largely on attachment theory analysis, she concluded that the mother’s psychopathology had driven alienating behaviour, and advised an...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
