I came across a story from America yesterday that suggests that the divorce rate could be dropping because of the slowdown (halting?) of the property market. I've not yet seen any direct evidence of this over here, but it is of course the case that in many divorces the matrimonial home has to be sold, and in a lot of those cases, the parties have no real option but to remain in the property until the sale takes place. This could be causing enormous hardship, especially where one of the parties is suffering physical or emotional abuse.

Update: Now I have come across evidence of this problem over here: "Clients having gone through the heartbreak of divorce and having reached a financial settlement find that they still cannot move on because failure to sell the house means they can't implement their divorce agreement" - see this article in The Times.

Read More...

H v H [2008] EWHC 935 (Fam), reported today on Family Law Week, involved a family business, in which both parties had an interest, but which was run by the husband. Both parties sought a clean break, but Mr Justice Moylan, not willing to require the husband to sell the business, found that the non-business assets were insufficient to achieve a fair clean break. He therefore awarded the wife 67% of those assets, and ordered the husband to pay £60,000 per annum spousal maintenance.

This was a relatively 'big money' case, but I think it has application to many cases involving parties of more modest means. It is a common scenario that the family business, being the only or main source of the family's income, cannot be sold and must therefore remain the property of one of the parties. This can then leave insufficient other assets for there to be a clean break, desirable though this may be, and the other party may therefore have to rely upon periodical payments to 'make up the difference'. The amount of the capital and maintenance elements of the settlement will usually be based upon needs and sharing, as in H v H.

Of course, the maintenance may later be capitalised, upon a subsequent application by either party for a clean break, if circumstances then make a clean break possible.

Read More...

Each year when I receive my copy of The Family Court Practice I read the Introduction, primarily to see what is new in this years' edition. The Introduction is written by the General Editor, His Honour Judge Anthony Cleary, and is notable this year for his comments on the need to reform s.25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, following "broad hints" from the courts "that reform is long overdue, particularly since the overwhelming majority of ancillary relief disputes are commercially in a very different league to the "big money cases" and are still driven more by need than principles of equality". As a practitioner who does not deal with "big money cases" I could not agree more. As I have indicated here on a number of occasions, if the statutory guidance were clearer, then I'm sure that a far higher proportion of cases could be settled, thus saving precious resources.

I've also complained about the clear reluctance of Parliament to address this important issue, and His Honour goes one further by questioning whether Parliament is "currently the most suitable vehicle to investigate and reform" this or any other area of family law, in the light of the effects of the criminalisation of breach of non-molestation injunctions, where he says that "there remains a suspicion that this reform paid too much attention to newspaper headlines" and that "family practitioners and judges were ignored". "It is crucial", he says, "that law makers show a greater ability to listen and comprehend." Quite.

Read More...

Here's the latest selection of search queries that have recently found their way to Family Lore, with my replies. As usual, my Disclaimer (see the sidebar) applies to what follows.

financial divorce consent order breach

The order may already have provisions covering this. If not, what to do depends upon the nature of the order that is breached. If it is an order for the payment of a lump sum of money, then it can be enforced in the same way as any other debt (warrant of execution, garnishee order, charging order etc.). If it is for payment of maintenance, the usual procedure is attachment of earnings. If it is for a transfer of property then you can, if necessary, obtain an order that the judge sign whatever documentation is required to give effect to the transfer.

do the english want sharia law?

I don’t think so, and I certainly hope not.

the beatles members with beards

Didn't they all have beards at one time or another?

recent cases beneficial interest after cohabitation after appeal 2008

Err… Fowler v Barron, for one.

adultery co-respondent rights uk

The Co-Respondent can deny the alleged adultery, and can also be heard on the question of costs.

family law since april in uk

Um, it is April. Which April do you mean?

family lawyer seeks work in ireland

There's a joke here...

english law relating to gifts

Not sure if this relates to family law, but disputes over gifts to the parties do often crop up, especially gifts from the parents of one party. That party or the giver of the gift then argues that it was a gift to them only or, in the case of monetary gifts, that it was actually a loan. The answer depends upon the nature of the ‘gift’ and the circumstances, but in the absence of an agreement to the contrary gifts are usually to both parties, and are not loans unless there is evidence of repayment.

claiming half of my ex husbands pension

Yes, you can, although it is arguable that you are only entitled to half of that proportion of the pension that was accumulated during the marriage. There are other factors involved, and you should seek legal advice.

examples of a character reference for a divorce

Why would you need one?

entitlements if my husbands leaves

All I can say here is that the starting-point is equal division of assets. If you want more than that, get some advice.

property price dispute in a consent order

Most orders provide a mechanism for resolving property price disputes, and if they do not then the price will be determined by the court.

money that's what i want tabs

Are you telling this to Tabs, or do you want tabs as well as money? If the latter, seek drug counselling.

family law not eligible for legal aid cant afford

You and many others. Most firms offer advice, for a fixed fee, and there are schemes for fee funding, such as this one.

new law relating to partners and houses

It’s been shelved for now – see this post.

number of school dropouts reported in the british army

What’s this got to do with me?


Update: I've since had a great search term, which I had to add to this post:

legal advise psyco ex wife

My advice: 1. Learn to spell. 2. Get a bodyguard. 3. Hire a good lawyer, and be prepared to give them a bit more detail. 4. In future, be more discerning in your choice of women.

Read More...

As a matter of principle (see below), I'll not be going out and buying the Sunday Times today so that I can see the full list of the 1000 richest Britons (it will not be published online until Tuesday), but I have it on good authority that Sir Paul McCartney's fortune is estimated by the paper at £500 million, £100 million more than Mr Justice Bennett's valuation of £400 million. Does this raise the awful prospect of Heather Mills reopening the case? I think not. Firstly, it will of course take a lot more than a newspaper estimate to persuade a court that the figure was wrong. Secondly, the award was clearly based upon her needs, rather than a percentage of the matrimonial assets - she would therefore also have to show either that Mr Justice Bennett was wrong in this, or that he grossly underestimated her needs.

Personally, I find all this fascination with money and wealth to be somewhat distasteful, and I therefore recommend the Independent on Sunday's antidote - the 'Happy List', which profiles "100 people who make Britain a better and a happier place to live".

Read More...

Many thanks to Family Law Week for the judgment in the remarkable case of Hall v Hall [2008] EWCA Civ 350, which I had not come across previously. In this case the husband instigated divorce and ancillary relief proceedings but the wife refused to cooperate, even denying that she had been personally served with the papers. When the ancillary relief application went before him on the 6th April 2006 and the wife did not appear, the district judge, clearly frustrated by the wife's (in)action, made an order transferring all known assets to the husband, in an attempt to shock the wife into cooperating, despite the fact that the husband only sought an equal division of assets. Incredibly, the wife still did nothing, and the order was implemented. Finally, in November 2006, the wife applied to have the order set aside, but her application was refused, not just by another district judge but also, on appeal, by a circuit judge, although neither judge had a full note of the case. She then applied to appeal a second time. Needless to say, her application was allowed by the Court of Appeal, where Lord Justice Thorpe found the proceedings to be "deeply flawed", and said:

"Of course a judge is fully justified in taking tough measures to convey to an avoidant litigant that she must engage in the proceedings and put her case if she is not to risk an unfair outcome. But tough measures stop at an unless order, framed to give the applicant all that he or she seeks."

Lord Justice Wall called this "a sorry tale", and I agree.

Read More...

Has the time for pre-nuptial agreements in this country finally arrived? The Gazette this week reports that demand for them has soared over the past year, in the wake of the Crossley case. In a survey of '100 of the UK's leading matrimonial lawyers' by accountants Grant Thornton, 77 said that they had seen a rise in the number of prenups, with similar rises in the numbers of pre-civil partnership and cohabitation agreements.

Meanwhile, in this month's Family Law, Mark Harper and Lucie Alhadeff, who represented Stuart Crossley, ask the question: are pre-nuptial agreements now binding in England, in the light of the decision in Crossley? The answer, of course, is that they are not but, as Harper and Alhadeff say: "Crossley provides a very useful mechanism where the prenup is likely to be a significant factor, such as in short, childless marriages". One party may now issue an application requiring the other party to 'show cause' why they should not be held to the terms of the prenup. The case can then follow a shortened procedure, potentially saving considerable time and costs. Note, however, that the procedure may not be appropriate where there are allegations of non-disclosure and where, unlike in Crossley, they could materially affect the likely award.

Read More...

Sometimes a comment is so good that it deserves a post all of its own. Today I received the following comment from Vail, on my post about courts rejecting agreed consent orders:

"As an applicant for divorce I would welcome a judge's consideration of what is fair and reasonable, as I would also welcome the opinion of a solicitor and counsel.

Where a draft consent order has been painfully thrashed out and drawn screaming and bleeding into the world within the context of an acrimonious divorce with agreed child contact hanging in the balance, I would expect the judge to respect the decision of the parties subsequent to them hearing his opinion and let them drag their mutilated emotions and stress-wracked bodies off into their respective sunsets to make the most of what is left of their miserable lives in quiet despair -without harbouring thoughts of malice, spite and revenge against the world in general and specifically the said judge.

Whose divorce is it after all?"

I really don't think I can add to that.

Read More...

When is an appeal not an appeal? The answer, it seems, is when it is an application for a rehearing, according to the Court of Appeal in Turner v Turner [2008] EWCA Civ 280. The case concerned ancillary relief proceedings in one of my local courts, Dartford County Court, in which District Judge Glover made an order in 2004 that required a charge to be executed by the husband. More than three years later the question of the form of the charge had not been resolved, so the district judge of his own motion made an order that it was to be executed within 28 days, in a form which he had approved. Mr Turner objected to the form of the charge, and therefore appealed to the circuit judge, who then ordered that his notice of appeal stand as an application for a rehearing of the order made by District Judge Glover. Mr Turner then sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against that order.

In the Court of Appeal Mr Turner was assisted by the ubiquitous McKenzie friend Dr Pelling who, as Lord Justice Wall admitted, put forward the persuasive arguments that the circuit judge had no jurisdiction to order his appellant's notice to stand as an application for rehearing by the district judge (thereby denying him the statutory right to appeal) and that there was really no point in going back to the district judge because the district judge had made up his mind. Lord Justice Wall, however, rejected those arguments, finding that the circuit judge was entitled to make the order that she did, as she was exercising the powers given to her under the overriding objective (under Rule 2.51D) of enabling the court to deal with cases justly, as she considered that the district judge should have had a hearing - the order made at that hearing would give Mr Turner something which he could then appeal to her in the normal way.

At first sight this all seems quite odd, having to go through the charade of a hearing before a district judge who had already made up his mind, but Lord Justice Wall pointed out that: "The practical choices for this court are either to give permission today, which would result in a further hearing and then a remission either to the circuit judge or to the district judge; or to refuse permission, in which case Mr Turner would be left to his remedies to go back to the district judge, and if the district judge retains his current position then he will have to appeal." Perhaps the most sensible course of action after all?

Read More...

I had not intended to mention Macca v Mucca again unless I could help it, but I couldn't resist this one (requires Flash Player):

Read More...

Sometimes getting clients to sensibly negotiate a financial settlement can be like pulling teeth. They have their own agenda and seem determined to obstruct the process, which can be especially frustrating if there are only limited assets available for distribution. So, I thought I would give a few pointers to anyone who is finding it difficult to reach an agreed settlement:

• The first thing to say is obvious, but needs saying: actively negotiate. Don't wait indefinitely for the other party to make the first move (they may not), and don't wait for them to offer you everything you want. Similarly, don't 'dig your heels in' by responding to a counter-proposal by repeating your last proposal, unless you really have offered everything you feel you reasonably can.
• Negotiate sensibly. There is no point in putting forward an outrageous proposal that there is no chance the other side will accept. Remember, one of the primary purposes of negotiation is to save costs - pointless offers will only prolong the matter, thereby increasing costs.
• One of the biggest problems is persuading clients to see the big picture, rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae. It may be galling that your ex has taken that old sofa that cost so much when it was bought, or that you paid the last electricity bill and they didn't, but my advice is get over it. Arguing over such matters will soon increase your costs way beyond the value of the items involved, and if the case goes to court such arguments will irritate the heck out of the District Judge.
• Try to see the other side's perspective. Remember, if the matter goes to a hearing the court will (obviously) consider the arguments put forward by both parties. For example, the needs of the other party (and, of course, any children) may dictate that you can't get everything you want.
• Put personal feelings aside. You may want to 'punish' your ex, but whatever they have done, it is extremely unlikely that it will have any bearing on the financial settlement. Increasing animosity will obviously decrease the chances of settlement.
  
• Lastly, and most importantly, listen to your lawyer's advice. They may not be telling you what you want to hear, but that is not their job - if they advise that you are being unrealistic, then lower your sights. They may also, in certain circumstances, advise you to contravene one of the above 'rules', because it is appropriate to do so.
  

Read More...

A certain well-reported case went before the Court of Appeal last week. Over the weekend, I realised that I hadn't seen any report of the outcome, so I did a news search for the parties' names. Nothing new came up, and now I know why. The Court of Appeal has, somewhat late in the day, banned publication of their names, in order to protect their teenage son. Accordingly, I can now only refer to the case as B v B, and I am grateful (once again) to Current Awareness for providing this link to a report of the case in The Guardian yesterday. I will not repeat the facts of the case - see the report - but suffice to say that the Court of Appeal ruled that the lower courts had erred in trying to share out the assets roughly equally when all of the wealth had been brought into the marriage by the wife, and therefore awarded Ms B a greater than half share.

Read More...

Well, of course it wasn't all over, but perhaps it is now (one can live in hope). Heather Mills was refused permission to appeal against the decision to make the full judgment public. The judgment will now be published, and I'll provide a link to it as soon as I have it. However, don't expect it to answer the burning question of exactly what led to Fiona Shackleton emerging from court yesterday with wet hair.

Update (about 2 minutes after I posted the above!): That didn't take long. The judgment has now been published, here, all 58 pages of it. I may post further about it once I've read it, if I still have the will to live...

Update to update: Fearing for my sanity, I have only scanned through the judgment. It goes into the details of the history of the marriage and the proceedings (with Ms Mills unsurprisingly not coming out unscathed), but essentially the decision was a simple needs-based one. Perhaps the most telling statement of Mr Justice Bennett is this: "This case is a paradigm example of an applicant [i.e. Ms Mills] failing to put a rational and logical case and thus failing to assist the court in its quasi-inquisitorial role to reach a fair result." So much for representing herself.

Read More...

So, it was £24.3 million - close to the 'estimates' flying around in the last few days. Let us just hope that is the end of it...

Update: The Times has published a summary of the judgement (thanks to Current Awareness for the link), which gives some details. Points to note:

1. Ms Mills sought an award of almost £125 million, whereas Sir Paul proposed that she should exit the marriage with assets of £15.8 million, inclusive of any lump sum award.

2. She was awarded a lump sum of £16.5 million, which together with her assets of £7.8 million means that she exits the marriage with total assets of £24.3.

3. The £16.5m award was made up of a sum of £14 million as the capitalised figure for her income needs, which the judge assessed as £600,000 per annum, and a sum of £2.5 million for her to buy a property in London.

4. Sir Paul's assets were valued at £400 million. Mr Justice Bennett found that: "There was no evidence at all before him that he was worth £800 million."

5. Lastly, the parties were: "strictly prohibited from publishing, disclosing or in any way revealing without the consent of the other the evidence, correspondence, transcripts, judgements or orders in the proceedings concerning (a) the child of the family, (b) the main suit, (c) the cross applications for ancillary relief and (d) any marital confidences."

OK, now let's hope that that really is the end of it, although I doubt it somehow.

Read More...

Here's something that has already been mentioned by Judith Middleton, but I think it bears repeating. The media cacophony over the McCartney/Mills case is reaching a crescendo with the judgement due tomorrow, but just how relevant is such a case to all the 'ordinary' people who are reading the stories? Well, quite relevant, actually, according to Resolution, which issued a media briefing last Thursday setting out a number of issues that they suggest are relevant to more ‘normal’ divorces:

• Sorting out a financial settlement doesn't have to involve a "high-conflict court battle" - there are alternatives, such as mediation.
• The case highlights the need for enforceable pre-nuptial agreements, "allowing people to take control of their own financial future rather than relying on the current lottery of divorce court hearings".
• If one party brings assets into the marriage, this can be taken into account when deciding the financial settlement, especially if those assets are considerable, but the usual position is that "unequal contribution is only relevant where it would produce an unfair result if it were not considered".
• The shortness of the marriage can also be relevant but, again, only "where it would produce an unfair result if it were not considered".
• Mr Justice Bennett has indicated that he intends to make part of the settlement public due to the level of media interest in the case - we will discover exactly what tomorrow - but financial proceedings are normally conducted in private, which encourages negotiation.

Read More...

Pets and divorce - John thought that this would be an appropriate subject for my first post. Personally, I think that he's too world weary with clients bickering over who should have the family mutt to post about it himself. Don't get me wrong - John loves animals (I wouldn't have stayed with him so long if he didn't), it's just that he's been telling me for some time he was going to do a post about this, but kept putting it off. Anyway, he doesn't have to now, and neither do I, because Pink Tape has written this excellent post telling you all you need to know about how those awful family courts deal with us pets on divorce. Chattels indeed.

Read More...

Here's some food for thought for the increasing number of husbands who feel that the law on divorce is biased against them. The Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex has published a study 'Marital splits and income changes over the longer term', which suggests "that marital splits continue to be associated with short-term declines in income for separating wives and children relative to separating husbands", although the size of the decline has reduced since the 1990s, due to the increased rates of employment for mothers. The study also suggests that "incomes for separating wives do recover but not to their previous levels: five years after a split, incomes remain about 10% below their pre-split levels on average", although "women who do not have a job in any of the five years after a marital split, or who do not find a new partner, do much worse than this".

Read More...

Feeling in a generous mood, I thought I would again respond to some of the search queries that have recently found their way to Family Lore. Once again, my Disclaimer (see the sidebar) applies to what follows.

how do i get a court order to stop my wife from taking the net proceeds from sale of house

Presumably, the house has already been sold and is/was owned solely by your wife, in which case you can apply to the court for an injunction order restraining her from taking the money. If it has not been sold yet then you can register a matrimonial home rights notice at the Land Registry, which will have to be removed before the sale can be completed - you will only agree to its removal once you are satisfied that the net proceeds will not be distributed until their division has either been agreed, or determined by the court. If the house is or was owned jointly, then the conveyancer dealing with the sale should not distribute the net proceeds without the agreement of both parties, or a court order.

what is a draft consent order

And, by the same searcher:

is a draft consent order legal document

A consent order is simply an order, the provisions of which have been agreed by the parties. The term most commonly refers to financial/property orders in divorce proceedings. A draft order is usually prepared by one of the parties' solicitors, agreed with the other party's solicitor, and then sent to the court for approval. If the court approves the draft, then it will make an order in those terms. The question then arises: is an agreed draft consent order enforceable? The answer is that it probably is, unless it states that the agreement contained in the order will only be binding upon the parties in the event of the court making an order in its terms.

who killed shafilea ahmed

We don't yet know, but the police are investigating a number of possible leads, following a recent appeal on the BBC Crimewatch programme.

lawyer deliberately makes it worse for their client

Oh dear. Sounds like this could be a matter for the Legal Complaints Service.

csa liability order can't pay

A liability order enables the Child Support Agency to take action to enforce payment of child support. What happens next depends upon what type of enforcement action the Agency decides to take. For example, they could instruct a bailiff to take possession of the non-resident parent’s belongings and sell them to raise the money the non-resident parent owes, they could take enforcement action in a county court, or they could apply to a magistrates court for the non-resident parent to be committed to prison. Note that on a committal application the court must consider the non-resident parent's means, and whether there has been 'wilful refusal or culpable neglect' on their part.

what to do if you have been named as the person involved in adultery

If you have been named as a 'Co-Respondent' in divorce proceedings, then you will have been served with a copy of the divorce petition, together with a form of acknowledgement, which you should complete and return to the court, stating (amongst other things) whether or not you admit the alleged adultery. If you do, then the court could order you to pay all or part of the Petitioner's costs of the divorce. You should seek legal advice if you are not sure how to complete the form.

i want to change the arrangements for our children

The first thing you should do is to try to agree any change in arrangements with the other parent. If this is not possible, would they agree to discuss the matter with you and a mediator? If all reasonable efforts to agree fail, then you may make an application to a court for an appropriate order (which will depend upon the nature of the arrangements which you would like changed).

taking advantage family court

Huh? Who's taking advantage of who, and how?

remarriage legal advice child support

Remarriage by itself does not affect liability for child support, but if the non-resident parent's new spouse has dependent children, then the liability is reduced when the NRP and his/her spouse live together.

english family law wife equal

Yes - of course.

county court procedures decree absolute

The procedure on applying for the decree absolute depends upon whether you are the petitioner or the respondent. The petitioner may apply after six weeks have elapsed since the date of the pronouncement of the decree nisi, by completing a simple application form and paying the court fee, currently £40. The court will then send out the decree absolute. The respondent may apply three months from the date when the petitioner can first apply, but the procedure is considerably different, and may involve a court hearing. Note that if either party applies after 12 months have elapsed since the date of the decree nisi, then they will need to explain the reasons for the delay, whether there has been any resumption of cohabitation since the decree nisi, and whether the wife has given birth to any child since the decree nisi.

what to dress in law court

Well, I wouldn't recommend a black cocktail dress, fishnet stockings and high heels, as an American judge was found wearing recently (albeit not in court), even if you're a woman. I assume that the query comes from a non-lawyer (hopefully lawyers know what to wear), in which case there is no dress code, but I would recommend wearing something smart, such as a suit.

set aside consent order for material non disclosure

I suspect that this query may have come from a lawyer, so I'll be brief (look it up yourself!). Any order, made by consent or not, can be set aside for a material non-disclosure, but before you make the application ask yourself: would the court have made a substantially different order if the disclosure had been made?

grandparent's rights in divorce

Grandparents (presumably of the children of the divorcing couple) have no rights in connection with the actual divorce proceedings. If the query relates to contact with the grandchildren, see this post. Otherwise, the only other scenario in which grandparents may be involved is in any property settlement on the divorce, where they claim to have an interest in the property.

application for an order for disclosure of child's whereabouts

See this post.

application for ancillary relief for dismissal purposes only

These are required with applications for ancillary relief (i.e. financial/property) consent orders (see above) - the financial claims have to be made, so that the court can dismiss them. They are made by completing a Form A, and heading it with the words 'For Dismissal Purposes Only'.

complaints about mediators divorce

The mediation service should have its own complaints procedure. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, then you may make a complaint to the UK College of Family Mediators.

Lastly, a question that I can't answer:

why marry?

Read More...

The Telegraph today reports upon Miss Berkeley's appeal, which went before the Court of Appeal, including Sir Mark Potter, yesterday. I mentioned this case previously, in this post, and Linda Berkeley herself commented upon the post. Details of the case can be found in the report of her application for permission to bring a second appeal, but briefly the issue is whether or not there should be a departure from equality, in the light of the fact that the whole of the capital had been hers from before the marriage. Representing her, James Turner QC argued that: "It offends against the principles of fairness to treat the wealth in the present case as if it had all been acquired by the joint efforts during the relationship" and that: "There are very powerful reasons, indeed overwhelming reasons, to justify and require a departure from the equality principle." Judgement was reserved, and will be awaited with interest.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph also today gives advice upon how to avoid having to go to court to sort out financial settlements on divorce. Their suggestions include instructing specialist lawyers as early as possible and going to mediation. The article then goes on to briefly explain the principles upon division of assets, maintenance and pre-nuptial agreements.

Lastly, I wasn't intending to comment again upon the McCartney/Mills divorce (unless there was a major development), but this report on the BBC amused me. It describes the futile attempts by reporters at the High Court last week to to find something newsworthy to report upon. So short of information were they that they were "reduced to analysing facial expressions, clothes and, at one point, a banana in the desperate search for something to say about a court case they are not allowed to report". Why a banana? Well, apparently one morning it was noticed that the only thing being carried into the court that wasn't a legal document was a banana, and it was suggested that this meant that the McCartneys had decided to work through the lunch break, which could mean a settlement was in the offing. "We soon realised we'd reached new levels of insanity", says the BBC correspondent. Indeed.

Read More...

The case of E v E, reported in this month's issue of Family Law, serves as a salutary reminder of the 'remarriage trap' for practitioners. For those who are not aware of the remarriage trap, it is the rule that you cannot make an application for a financial/property settlement ("ancillary relief") after you have remarried. You must therefore ensure that the settlement is finalised, before tying the knot again.

The facts in E v E were that the wife petitioned for divorce in 2003 and the decree absolute was pronounced in September of that year. A financial settlement was agreed and in July 2005 a draft consent order was drawn up whereby the wife was to pay the husband a lump sum of £250,000. The order included the common recital that the agreement was only to be binding in the event of the court making an order in its terms. The husband remarried on the 12th August 2005. A few days later the order was filed with the court, along with the husband's Form A application for ancillary relief, for dismissal purposes. Questions then arose as to the court's jurisdiction, in the light of the remarriage trap. The husband then applied to have the draft order approved. Mr Justice Singer refused the application - the husband had fallen into the remarriage trap, and the court had no jurisdiction to approve the consent order.

As the comment to the report says, a brutal outcome, but it is not as if the trap had not been exposed before.

Read More...