header-logo header-logo

Family proceedings

12 September 2014
Issue: 7621 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Barnett v Barnett [2014] EWHC 2678 (Fam), [2014] All ER (D) 36 (Aug)

The parties divorced in Bulgaria and the wife applied pursuant to s 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceeding Act 1984, for leave to apply for financial relief pursuant to Pt III of that Act after an overseas divorce between the parties. The Family Division held that leave would be granted and that rr 14 and 15 of Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014 (SI 2014/840) read together with the definition of “the court” in the Act meant that at the point of granting leave the court, acting judicially, might make a decision as to where the substantial application should be issued and as to the allocation of the future substantive proceedings.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll