Skip to main content


Featured post

AA v AB (Costs): Even parties of modest means can incur ruinous costs

Image: Public Domain, via Piqsels ...or perhaps that should be 'no means'. It is of course a feature of reported financial remedy cases that they almost invariably involve couples of substantial means. It is also an all-too-regular feature that the couple incur ruinous costs, as they fight a never-ending battle, oblivious of the cost. But anyone who believes that such folly is the sole preserve of the rich is sorely mistaken. Those of modest, or even no means, are equally capable of running up absurd legal bills. And this was demonstrated in the judgement of Mr Recorder Salter (the one-time Chairman of Resolution, I believe) in AA v AB (Costs) . (As I write this the judgement is dated 19 March 2020, but I believe it should be 2021.) I am not going to go into the detail of the judgment - my purpose here is to mention it merely as a warning to others involved in financial remedy disputes. All I am essentially going to point out are the bare facts and figures involved in the case,

Latest posts

AS v CS: Party cannot unilaterally cancel private FDR

News Essentials: 17th April 2021

Is the expression ‘contact at all costs’ unhelpful?

Brangelina: It needs to end, by Marilyn Stowe

News Essentials: 3rd April 2021

The illusory wonders of mediation, by Marilyn Stowe

Time for a rethink on helping separated couples, by Marilyn Stowe

News Essentials: 27th March 2021

£1 million voucher scheme helps separating parents avoid ‘fire and brimstone’ of family court


News Essentials: 20th March 2021

G v G: Appeal 'substantially' allowed