Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing: December Teaser


Moutreuil v Andreewitch (Contempt: Sentence) [2020] EWHC 3085 (Fam) (16 November 2020), Cobb J – Committal of Mr A for contempt of a freezing order. Six months imprisonment suspended and indemnity costs: a model short judgment from Cobb J.

Mousavi-Khalkali v Abrishamchi & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1493 (12 November 2020) – An order for costs, subject to detailed assessment, the receiving party is entitled to a payment on account (CPR 1998, r 44.2(8)). The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge that Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc. [2015] EWHC 566 (Comm) was the apt approach: not the ‘irreducible minimum’, but a ‘reasonable sum on account’.

R (GR) v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Lord Chancellor [2020] EWHC 3140 (Admin) (24 November 2020), Pepperall J – Read together Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013, reg 31(b) and 37 gave the casework director a discretion to ignore the value of an applicant’s share in a house/land (even where above £100,000).

TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons & ors [2020] EWCA Civ 1182 (8 September 2020) – Search orders, their history and practice in relation to them explained by Arnold LJ in Court of Appeal.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants v The President of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration And Asylum Chamber) [2020] EWHC 3103 (Admin) (20 November 2020), Fordham J – a practice guidance issued by the President on statutory terms, and which says that unattended hearings in the Upper Tribunal is the ‘norm’, is unlawful.

Family Procedure Rules 2010 Part 18, and when?...

FPR 2010, Part 18 provides the means for a party to proceedings to file an application during the course of proceedings; and sometimes even before issue (eg a freezing order); or afterwards (eg an application to set aside part or all of an order). Part 18 provides the general procedural framework. Part 20 refers to specific types of ‘interim remedies’ of the more specialised – or ‘non-routine’ (as it will be called here) – types. These are applied for by the Part 18 procedure (though the applicant learns this almost osmotically by reference to a parenthetic aside to FPR 2010, r 20.4).

PD18A, para 4.6 says a party should apply as soon as a party thinks ‘that it is necessary or desirable to make it’, which begs the question this article is groping for. The question is to know what interim applications may be made; what fit the case in question; and then come to how the individual party seeks such remedies. A few thoughts on what is a non-routine application and when a formal Part 18 application is appropriate are set out in the article.

The Family Law Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Law Online Service. The full briefing is available here.

David Burrows

Written by David Burrows

Subscribe to the Bloomsbury Professional Law Newsletter

Law Online

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw Online research for solicitors and barristers practising in English law Free Trial

Need Help?

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw If you need any help with finding publications or just ask a question. Talk to an Advisor: 01444 416119
or send us a message