All Things Family Law

Double, Double ‘Goyal’ and Trouble: An Easy Way to Sharing Foreign Assets on Divorce? I n the hustle and bustle of the run up to Christmas one can (perhaps) be forgiven for overlooking the latest decision on the ability of the English courts to impose orders over foreign assets. Whilst we were all eating mince pies and watching Home Alone as if it were a new release, the court was seeking to provide clarity on an issue which is becoming so important in an increasingly globalised world. The case of Goyal v Goyal [2016] EWHC 2758 (Fam ) provides, at least in the interim, welcome guidance and reinforcement of the principles of sharing foreign assets. It is also a stark reminder of the fatality of failing to follow the correct procedures and how the court will not indulge such shortcomings even where a party does not have the benefit of legal representation (Mrs Goyal did not have a lawyer).   The (Brief) History Mr and Mrs   Goyal had been married for 8 yea...

Last week I represented a Father in an application made by the Mother for permission to permanently remove their children from the country. The final hearing was listed for five days. I would like to use this blog to briefly summarise the law as it now stands in this area and to address the old age question as to whether   a Father get a rougher ride than a Mother in cases concerning children. Does gender bias exist? The extensive arguments filed on the applicable law reinforce how the higher courts have now (helpfully) unified the approach that should be taken in these cases. We now have clarity.   Without getting too bogged down in the law, the decision in a case known as Re F (a child) (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882 essentially says the court should now adopt a ‘holistic view’ of the children’s welfare. As part of the overall welfare consideration the court needs to place appropriate weight on the strength of the relationship between the Fa...

How much a particular course of action is going to cost and how these costs are going to be met should be high on the agenda at the outset. This has grown in prevalence since the legal aid reforms severely restricted access to legal services. Parliament has sought to react, and to some extent dilute the impact of the reforms, by introducing, into legislation, the ability for a party to apply for a Legal Services Payment Order under s.22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This is an order requiring your spouse to fund your legal costs, usually, and initially, until the Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing (the second hearing where constructive discussions and negotiations are held before a District Judge who will provide an indication to assist you in reaching an agreement)