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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
BC v A Local Authority and others [2024] EWHC 1639 ( Fam) What are the practical implications of this case? When an application to alter a name is brought not by the local authority or a parent, but by the child, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is triggered. The child’s welfare remains the court’s overriding priority. In deciding whether a forename or surname should be changed, the court must consider the welfare checklist in sections 1(1) and 3(1) of the Children Act 1989 ( Ch A 1989). Outcomes depend heavily on the particular facts. What was the background? The child had been under a final care order since June 2022 and the local authority placed her in long‑term foster care. In 2021, her father was arrested and charged with sexual offences, including rape of his daughter (paras [7] to [18]). Within the care...
P v Q and Others [2024] EWFC 85 ( B) What are the practical implications of this case? Mrs Justice Knowles characterised the matter as a ‘cautionary tale’ about informal artificial insemination arrangements that proved unreliable, causing ‘devastating’ consequences for the child and the adults, after deception about the method of conception. The judgment also clarifies how the applicable legislative provisions operate in these circumstances... What was the background? P was the child’s biological mother and was married to Q when conception occurred. F was a known sperm donor. P asked the court to declare F the child’s legal father, asserting the child was conceived by natural insemination, i.e. sexual intercourse. F backed P’s application, whereas Q was firmly opposed, maintaining that conception resulted from artificial insemination. Q appears on the birth certificate and, at the time of conception, did not know that P and F had had...
In this issue: Public children Financial provision Private children Court of Protection Daily and weekly news alerts New content Updated content New Q& As Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Useful information Public children Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service ( SIHIS) for children pilot Three NHS Trusts— Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham Children’s Hospital and Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust—have received funding to launch pilots and evaluate a new Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service ( SIHIS). The service is designed to tackle delays arising from late and multiple expert medical statements. The trial will assess how this model can drive lasting, system-wide improvements that cut delay, with the pilot scheduled to conclude on 31 March 2025... Anonymisation ( Re T ( Children: Publication of Judgment)) In Re T ( Children: Publication of Judgment) [2024] EWCA Civ 697, [2024] All ER ( D) 79 (...
BR v SN [2024] EWHC 1512 ( Fam) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision assessed the legal position on Hadkinson applications, in the specific setting of Ch A 1989 proceedings. Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567 remains the primary authority; as recognised in Mubarak v Mubarak [2004] EWHC 1158 ( Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 932 and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in de Gafforj v de Gafforj [2018] EWCA Civ 2070, [2018] All ER ( D) 01 ( Oct), the criteria for a Hadkinson order require an applicant to demonstrate: the respondent is in contempt the contempt is intentional and continuing as a consequence, there is an impediment to the course of justice there is no other realistic and effective remedy the order is proportionate to the issue and does not go beyond what is...
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the realistic ( Local Authority v A & Others) A Local Authority v A (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others [2024] EWCOP 19 What are the practical implications of this case? Although the courts labelled the facts as ‘extraordinary’ and ‘highly abnormal’, the core lesson for practitioners is simple: do not let the ideal overshadow what is achievable in reality. When deciding what best serves a person who lacks capacity, professionals ought not to pursue supposedly risk-free choices that are unavailable or unreal, particularly where that riskless route most restricts the protected person’s autonomy and human rights. The focus should be on workable arrangements, not on unattainable perfection, especially where absolute safety would come at the greatest cost to the individual’s freedoms. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, everyone, including the court, must try to meet their...
In this issue Practice and procedure Relationship breakdown International children Private children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure HMCTS updates guidance for appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division. HM Courts and Tribunals Service has revised the route for appealing county court, High Court or tribunal decisions in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. The revision removes the former requirement to file three copies of the appellant’s notice and grounds of appeal with the Court of Appeal. See: LNB News 17/06/2024 28. Relationship breakdown Victim status for human rights claim not established ( AP v JP and another). In AP v JP [2024] EWHC 1197 ( Fam), the background was that AP (now 68) and JP (now 72)...
AP v JP and another [2024] EWHC 1197 ( Fam) What are the practical implications of this case? The court characterised this as an ‘unfortunate’ and ‘unusual’ matter, the intricacy of which justified appointing an advocate to the court to assist. AP’s difficulties in securing legal recognition of his and JP’s ongoing relationship arose squarely from the terms of MCA 1973, s 11 as they applied at two particular moments in time. First, in 2009—the date of their initial marriage ceremony— MCA 1973, s 11(c) expressly provided that any purported marriage between two people of the same sex was void. That statutory bar in turn fundamentally unravelled AP’s first application, issued in 2018, for a declaration under section 55(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1986 ( FLA 1986) that the 2009 marriage was ‘at its inception a valid marriage’ (emphasis added). In short, the...
In this issue Financial provision Public children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New Precedent New Practice Note Updated content Useful information Financial provision Unequal division of property on divorce—the importance of the source of assets ( Standish v Standish) In Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, [2024] All ER ( D) 104 ( May), the Court of Appeal considered cross-appeals arising from Moor J’s first instance award of £45m to the wife from total assets of £132m. On appeal, the wife pursued an equal division (£66m), while the husband sought to pare back her award to £25m. The Court of Appeal dismissed the wife’s challenge and upheld the husband’s cross-appeal, reducing the wife’s entitlement under the sharing principle to £25m. The matter was nevertheless remitted to first instance to decide whether £25m would satisfy the wife’s needs, as Moor J had made no such...
Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, [2024] All ER ( D) 104 ( May) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies two key dimensions of how the sharing principle is applied, a central touchstone since the House of Lords’ authorities in White v White [2000] 2 FLR 981 and Miller v Miller; Mc Farlane v Mc Farlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186. In essence, the sharing principle provides that wealth built up during the marriage through the parties’ joint endeavour—whatever their respective roles—should be divided on an equal basis... Conversely, non-matrimonial property (including pre-marital assets and inheritances) falls outside the sharing exercise, though it remains available to satisfy needs where necessary. The courts have also recognised that fairness may, in some cases, warrant bringing some or all of that non-matrimonial property within the sharing principle (often referred to as...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Private children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis Nexis® community Daily and weekly news alerts New content Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Artificial intelligence in the family justice system The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory ( NFJO) has issued a briefing, AI in the family justice system. The NFJO explains that the paper is designed to spark debate and reflection on how artificial intelligence could enhance the experiences of families and professionals using the family justice system. It also sets out the associated challenges and risks, and considers governance options that promote safe and equitable use. See: LNB News 03/06/2024 15. Private children Transgender adolescents and the capacity to consent to treatment ( EF v LM and another) EF v LM [2024] EWHC 922 ( Fam), [2024] All ER ( D) 23 ( May) signals...
EF v LM and another [2024] EWHC 922 ( Fam), [2024] All ER ( D) 23 ( May) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores the intricate questions surrounding consent in relation to transgender adolescents and children. From 16 up to, but not yet 18, a young person may consent to medical treatment under section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, without needing approval from a parent or guardian. The judgment, however, calls into question whether that autonomy alone sufficiently protects the young person’s best interests. Although the court retains power to step in and set aside a young person’s consent where the decision is grave enough to justify intervention ( Re W ( A Minor) ( Consent to Medical Treatment) [1993] 1 FLR 1), this case sharpens the issue of when judicial intervention should occur. It also starkly...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Financial provision Relationship breakdown Public children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content New legislation New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Direction Update No 5 of 2024 The fifth update to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 ( FPR 2010) Practice Directions in 2024 has been published, revising FPR 2010, PD 7A, PD 9A, PD 12B, PD 12B ( Pilot), PD 12F, PD 36N and PD 36ZE. This is Update No 5 of 2024 in total. Within FPR 2010, PD 9A, the existing pre-action protocol annexed to the Practice Direction is substituted with a new pre-application protocol, and that new pre-application protocol is also inserted as an annex to FPR 2010, PD 12B and FPR 2010, PD 12B ( Pilot). In addition, a new Practice Direction, FPR 2010, PD 41G ( Proceeding by Electronic Means: Certain...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Financial provision Private children Public children Private children Costs Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New content Updated content New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Direction update no. 4 of 2024 The fourth 2024 update to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Directions brings in PD 36ZG ( Part 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021: provision during piloted commencement). It sets out the Family Court process to be followed while the pilot for the domestic abuse protection order ( DAPO) is in operation. FPR 2010, PD 36ZG supplements FPR 2010, r 36.2A. See: LNB News 21/05/2024 82. Update to standard orders—21 May 2024 On 21 May 2024, Peel J, the judge overseeing standard orders,...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Private children Public children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New legislation New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure Practice Guidance: Urgent applications, out of hours applications and bundles in the Family Division of the High Court On 10 May 2024, Sir Andrew Mc Farlane, President of the Family Division, issued Practice Guidance on Urgent Applications, Out of Hours Applications and Bundles in the Family Division of the High Court. Refer to: LNB News 13/05/2024 43. FPRC meeting minutes The minutes of the Family Procedure Rule Committee meeting on 4 March 2024 are now available. Private children Gender dysphoria ( O v P and another [2024] EWHC 1077 ( Fam)) In O v P [2024] EWHC 1077 ( Fam), the Family Division determined two...
FG and another v IJ and others ( Secretary of State for the Department of Education intervening) [2024] EWHC 586 ( Fam), [2024] All ER ( D) 132 ( Mar) What are the practical implications of this case? In his judgment, the President observed that, although it is commonplace for the legal status of commissioning parents in surrogacy to be secured via adoption, there was no existing authority that tackled the precise issue before the court. Here, a parental order was sought despite an adoption order already being in place because a family trust excluded adopted children. The decision therefore underlines that, when receiving instructions concerning surrogate-born children, advisers should look beyond the immediate mechanism for conferring parentage—be that under foreign law, by adoption, or through a parental order—and remain alert to other facets of the child’s life that may turn on their legal...
In this issue: Practice and Procedure Public children Private children Financial provision Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New Q& As Useful information Practice and Procedure Mo J announces rule change on how Court Funds Office holds dormant money The Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) has introduced a change to the rules on how the Court Funds Office ( CFO) retains Unclaimed Court Money held for 30 years or longer. The Mo J is urging those entitled to claim before 1 June 2024, when all dormant CFO accounts will be surrendered and any future right to recover funds will be lost. See: LNB News 07/05/2024 60. Law Society publishes interim report on 21st Century Justice Project The Law Society has issued an interim report updating its 21st Century Justice Project. It...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Relationship breakdown Public children Court of Protection Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure New Form FM5 ( Statement of position on non-court dispute resolution) and updated forms From 29 April 2024, parties in private law children cases and contested financial remedy matters must complete the new Form FM5 ( Statement of position on non-court dispute resolution). Save where domestic abuse is raised, parties are required to file and serve Form FM5, setting out their stance on engaging with non-court dispute resolution. The form must be lodged and served seven days before the first on notice hearing and, as the court may direct, before any subsequent hearing in the proceedings. From 29 April 2024,...
Williams v Williams [2024] EWHC 733 ( Fam), [2024] All ER ( D) 65 ( Apr) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision is noteworthy because it supplies the first judicial guidance on whether a final divorce order can be undone where the application was correctly and procedurally advanced and granted, even though the client had not, in fact, given any instructions for the application to be issued. The court’s reasoning confirms that rescinding a final divorce order is, at best, a theoretical possibility in exceptionally limited situations; the procedural mechanisms in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 4.1(6), or the so‑called ‘slip’ rule in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 29.16, are not available when the mistake did not stem from the court. A key factor highlighted is the societal significance of marital status and the consequent need for certainty as to...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Relationship breakdown Financial provision Public children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Reminder: Court fees in certain family proceedings to increase from 1 May 2024 Following the Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) publishing its response to the consultation on ‘ Implementing increases to selected court and tribunal fees’, the Court and Tribunal Fees ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2024, SI 2024/476, has been released. This sets out rises to chosen court and tribunal fees, including specific family proceedings, with further increases affecting a range of civil court fees. The Lexis+® UK Family team consider the changes to court fees in certain family matters coming into effect on 1 May 2024......
What is the purpose of the changes? To improve MIAM take-up and encourage earlier resolution of private law disputes about children and financial remedy matters, the Family Procedure Rules 2010 ( FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 3, together with FPR 2010, PD 3A, are updated by the Family Procedure ( Amendment No 2) Rules 2023, SI 2023/1324, and the sixth Practice Direction update of 2023, effective from 29 April 2024. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 28 is also revised concerning costs, and FPR 2010, PD 5A is amended to add provision for a new Form FM5. There are no transitional measures; the amendments apply from 29 April 2024 irrespective of when the application was issued. What are the key changes? In short, the principal updates are: forms: a new Form FM5 (statement of position on non-court dispute resolution) must be completed from 29 April 2024 in private law...
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
