Skip to main content

Posts

Featured post

Horohoe v Horohoe: The weight to be attached to a post-separation agreement

Image: Public Domain, via Piqsels I suppose I should begin my summary of Mr Justice Holman's judgment in  Horohoe v Horohoe by setting out his preliminary observations. They certainly bear repeating. Over and over. He said: "... at a directions hearing on 2 October 2020 I implored both parties to settle this case. I expressly recorded on the face of my order that day the following: " … the court today, in discharge of its duties under FPR rule 1, very strongly urged both parties to make a determined and open minded attempt to settle this case before substantial further costs are expended, and to avoid the destructive effect of a contested hearing." At that stage, the combined costs of the parties were recorded on the face of the order as being about £256,000. The projected combined additional costs to the end of a final hearing were recorded as being about a further £227,000. That has come to pass, and the combined costs are now, in round figures, at least £500,000,

Latest posts

News Essentials: 6th March 2021

ACTION FOR CHILDREN REACTS TO CUT TO £20 UNIVERSAL CREDIT UPLIFT

News Essentials: 27th February 2021

Re E (A Child) (Mediation Privilege): Matters discussed in mediation should not be disclosed in Hague application

JM v RM: A wrongful act of retention requires there to be a clearly agreed due date of return

News Essentials: 20th February 2021

CHARITY FRONTLINE STAFF REVEAL PARENTS AND CHILDREN AT BREAKING POINT IN ‘DOSSIER OF DESPAIR’

The great wigs debate: If you look like a fool, people will laugh at you

News Essentials: 13th February 2021

G (Abduction: Consent/discretion): Judge wrong to exercise discretion to order return of children

News Essentials: 6th February 2021

FC v MC: Same-sex partner of mother granted parental responsibility