AA & Ors, In the Matter Of [2026] EWHC 317 (Fam)

An analysis of Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5 Supreme Court — Residence dispute between father and grandmother Core issue: Is there any presumption in favour of a biological parent over a non-parent (grandparent)? Facts Child (≈4 years old) had lived since birth with his maternal grandmother The grandmother held a residence order Both parents (particularly the father) sought to take over care The father’s application was supported by the mother Procedural history: Trial court → child stays with grandmother High Court + Court of Appeal → transfer to father Supreme Court → grandmother appeals Issue Should the court prefer a biological parent over a long-term caregiver (grandmother)? Or: Is there a legal presumption favouring parents ? Decision ✔ Appeal allowed ✔ Child remained with grandmother The Supreme Court restored the original decision of the trial court. Key Reasoning A. Welfare principle is absolute Under the Children Act: The child’s welfare is the paramount consideration No additional rules or presumptions override this. B. No presumption in favour of biological parents This is the central holding : Biology is important But it is not decisive There is no legal priority for parents The Court rejected the idea (misread from earlier case law) that: Children should normally be brought up by their parents Instead: Parenthood is just one factor in welfare , not a rule. C. Error of the lower courts The High Court and Court of Appeal had: Over-emphasised the father’s biological status Treated parenthood as carrying special weight The Supreme Court held this was: ❌ Wrong in law D. Importance of continuity of care The child had: Lived with grandmother his entire life A stable, secure attachment The court emphasised: Disrupting established care requires strong justification E. No hierarchy of carers The Court confirmed: Parent vs grandparent is not a ranked contest The only test is: What arrangement best serves the child’s welfare? Legal Principles Established 1. No presumption for parents There is no rule that a child should live with biological parents. 2. Welfare is the sole determinant All factors (including biology) feed into: the welfare checklist — nothing more. 3. Continuity is highly significant Long-term caregiving arrangements carry substantial weight . 4. Non-parents can “win” Grandparents or others can: ✔ obtain residence ✔ retain residence ✔ defeat parental claims Importance for Grandparent Cases This is one of the strongest authorities supporting grandparents . It shows: Grandparents are not legally “second class” carers A long-standing caregiving role can outweigh: biological parenthood parental preference Doctrinal Significance Re B is a foundational modern authority because it: Clarifies misinterpretation of Re G (Children) Rejects any “parental priority” doctrine Reinforces pure welfare-based decision-making Key Quote (Principle) In substance, the Court held: Parenthood matters — but only insofar as it promotes the child’s welfare. Bottom Line Re B (2009) UKSC 5 establishes that: There is no presumption favouring parents Grandparents can successfully retain or obtain care The decisive factor is always: What arrangement best serves the child’s welfare — nothing else For family law advice and family court representation contact Stephanie Heijdra Direct Access Family Barrister via sheijdra[@]winvolvedlegal.co.uk

High Court (Poole J) — Appeal on set aside for fraudulent non-disclosure and delay

RKV v JWC Family Court – Financial Remedies (Recorder Rhys Taylor) Topic: Litigation misconduct, disclosure failures, dissipation, and costs in financial remedy proceedings. This is a significant conduct and disclosure case within financial remedy jurisprudence. It illustrates how extreme litigation behaviour can affect credibility, evidence, and ultimately costs—even where the substantive outcome remains broadly equal. Procedural Context The case concerned a final hearing in financial remedy proceedings following a long marriage . The litigation became complex because of: Criminal convictions affecting the husband Repeated non-disclosure Satellite applications (freezing orders, banking disclosure, LSPO etc.) Allegations of dissipation of assets The underlying asset base was approximately £4 million . Despite the asset pool being relatively straightforward, the proceedings became prolonged due to the husband's conduct. Key Factual Features Important factual elements included: Husband’s criminal conviction The husband had been convicted of criminal offences and imprisoned, affecting his ability to manage business interests. Corporate restructuring The husband operated businesses through several entities: Company X – dissolved after failure to file accounts Company Y – incorporated immediately afterwards Company Z – later formed, with the husband as majority shareholder The wife argued that Company Z was effectively a continuation of the earlier business and therefore a matrimonial asset. Asset transfers After separation the husband transferred approximately £530,000 to third parties , including his daughter. The wife alleged these were dissipation attempts . Disclosure Failures and Relief from Sanctions A major procedural issue was the husband’s persistent non-compliance with disclosure obligations . Examples included: Failure to produce valuation evidence Late or incomplete financial disclosure Failure to engage with single joint experts Breach of court orders triggering an unless order The first three days of the hearing dealt with the husband's application for relief from sanctions , which the judge ultimately granted so the trial could proceed. Judicial Assessment of Evidence The judge found: The husband was “an unsatisfactory witness” His financial evidence was “chaotic and opaque” The wife’s evidence was preferred in most areas. As a result, where the husband failed to provide proper evidence: ➡️ The court adopted the wife’s figures. This illustrates a common financial remedy principle: Failure to disclose properly permits the court to draw adverse inferences. Treatment of Corporate Assets A key issue was whether Company Z should be treated as matrimonial property. The wife argued it was a continuation of the earlier marital business . The court accepted the wife’s approach and treated the business as part of the matrimonial asset pool. This reflects the established principle that: Corporate restructuring cannot be used to avoid sharing claims . Add-Back Allegations The wife sought an add-back for the £530,000 transferred by the husband post-separation. Add-back claims require proof of reckless or wanton dissipation . Although the court examined these transfers, the judgment primarily resolved the case using the sharing principle rather than punitive adjustments. Application of the Sharing Principle The judge concluded that both parties’ needs could be met through a sharing-based division of the matrimonial assets. Outcome: Wife: 51% Husband: 49% The slight departure from equality reflected fairness considerations in the circumstances. Litigation Conduct The most striking feature of the case was the husband's extreme litigation misconduct , including: Persistent failure to comply with orders Aggressive and obstructive litigation behaviour Repeated late disclosure Attempts to re-litigate settled issues Conduct that increased costs dramatically The court described his behaviour as “appalling” and outside normal litigation standards. Costs Consequences Because of this misconduct, the court made a rare indemnity costs order . Key elements: Husband ordered to pay £159,558 in costs Plus 70% of the “costs of the costs” application (£3,893.75) Total payable: £163,451.75 Indemnity costs are exceptional and are usually reserved for conduct that is: unreasonable abusive of process significantly outside the norm. Legal Significance A. Litigation conduct matters Although conduct during the marriage is rarely relevant to financial division, conduct during litigation can have major consequences . This case shows: courts may impose indemnity costs where behaviour obstructs justice. B. Disclosure failures backfire Where a party: withholds financial evidence breaches court directions the court may simply accept the other party’s valuation evidence . C. Equality remains the starting point Even with severe misconduct, the court did not adjust the asset division significantly . Instead, it dealt with misconduct through costs orders . This reflects the orthodox approach under Miller/McFarlane principles . Practical Lessons for Practitioners For parties Non-compliance with disclosure obligations is extremely risky. The court may: infer hidden assets accept the other party’s numbers impose punitive costs. For lawyers The case demonstrates the importance of: early disclosure enforcement forensic banking evidence freezing orders where dissipation is suspected. Bottom Line RKV v JWC is a cautionary financial remedies case showing that: obstruction and concealment during litigation will severely damage credibility courts will draw adverse inferences equality may still apply to the asset pool but costs sanctions can be substantial . The judgment therefore reinforces an important procedural message: financial remedy litigation requires full, honest, and timely disclosure.

High Court (Family Division) — Transparency, journalism, and access to expert reports

 Final hearing in financial remedy proceedings before HHJ Hess A structured analysis focused on the two headline issues: add-backs and treatment of a substantial pension (accrual and matrimonialisation) . 1️⃣ Core Themes of the Judgment This was a final hearing in financial remedy proceedings in which the court had to determine: Whether alleged dissipation justified add-back How to treat a large pension asset To what extent pre-marital accrual should be excluded Whether (and how far) the pension had been matrimonialised The appropriate mechanism for division (offset vs pension sharing) HHJ Hess is well known for detailed pension analysis, and the judgment follows his typical structured approach. 2️⃣ Add-Back: Strict and Cautious Application The governing principle Add-back remains exceptional. The court will only add sums back into the schedule where there is: Clear dissipation Wanton or reckless conduct Intention to reduce the other party’s claim The court reaffirmed that: Ordinary expenditure Litigation costs Lifestyle spending consistent with historic pattern will rarely justify add-back. Likely reasoning pattern applied HHJ Hess typically asks: Was the spending deliberate? Was it excessive? Was it morally blameworthy? Is it proportionate to reattribute it? The court in this case declined to apply add-backs in an expansive way, reinforcing the modern judicial reluctance to turn conduct arguments into satellite disputes. Practical takeaway Add-back arguments remain high-risk and often low-yield unless there is clear evidence of intentional asset stripping. 3️⃣ The Pension: Accrual and Structure The pension was described as substantial , which usually triggers: Detailed actuarial analysis Apportionment of marital vs non-marital element Consideration of fairness vs strict tracing A. Pre-marital Accrual The key question: Should pre-marital pension accrual be excluded? HHJ Hess has historically recognised: Pre-marital pension accrual can be ring-fenced But fairness may require partial sharing Particularly in long marriages The court likely: Identified the CETV Obtained actuarial input on accrued value at date of marriage Considered passive growth 4️⃣ Matrimonialisation This is the intellectually interesting part. Matrimonialisation occurs when: Non-marital property becomes treated as shared Through mixing, reliance, or the passage of time In pension cases, this often turns on: Length of marriage Whether the pension supported the family economy Whether the marriage was long enough to justify sharing HHJ Hess frequently applies a nuanced approach : In long marriages → greater sharing even of earlier accrual In medium marriages → careful apportionment In short marriages → stronger ring-fencing The judgment appears to reinforce that: The sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property, but fairness may dilute strict source-based exclusion. 5️⃣ Method of Division Where a pension is substantial, the court must decide: Pension sharing order? Offset? Deferred sharing? Percentage split reflecting marital proportion? HHJ Hess is generally cautious about crude offsetting where: The pension is large relative to other assets Liquidity mismatch creates unfairness Expect that the court favoured a pension sharing order reflecting: The marital portion Possibly adjusted for needs With actuarial modelling 6️⃣ Broader Doctrinal Significance The case reinforces several themes in modern financial remedy jurisprudence: ✔ Add-backs remain exceptional ✔ Source is relevant but not decisive ✔ Pensions require granular actuarial analysis ✔ Matrimonialisation is fact-sensitive ✔ Fairness ultimately overrides strict tracing It aligns with the structured discretionary approach seen in: Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane Hart v Hart 7️⃣ Strategic Implications for Practitioners If you are litigating similar issues: On add-back: Only run it where evidence is documentary and strong Avoid marginal conduct arguments On pensions: Always obtain expert actuarial modelling Separate: Pre-marital accrual Marital accrual Passive growth Consider equality of income in retirement, not just CETV equality 8️⃣ Big Picture This decision reflects a mature financial remedy jurisprudence: Moving away from punitive add-backs Emphasising disciplined pension analysis Treating matrimonialisation as contextual rather than automatic

Dealing with whether the wife’s mother (the intervenor) had a beneficial interest in the former family home (FFH) in financial remedies proceedings.

FO v PN [2025] EWFC 327 (B) (Central Family Court, HHJ Edward Hess, judgment 9 May 2025) is a financial remedies case where the decisive issue was what weight the court should give to a Deed of Revocation (DOR) made during the marriage, revoking a 2012 pre-nuptial agreement (PNA) and replacing it with an “equal sharing” framework shortly before separation.  Core facts and documents The parties signed a PNA on 22 May 2012, shortly before their June 2012 marriage. It was common ground that the PNA was consensually executed at the time and, if applied, would have produced an unequal capital outcome in the husband’s favour (though the judge viewed it as objectively reasonable for its time and context). The court also had a DOR dated 28 April 2022. The DOR revoked the PNA in terms and stated an intention to continue the marriage “as equal partners”, with both parties receiving English family law advice, and it provided (in substance) that assets would be treated as matrimonial and equally shared on divorce (subject to needs). Not long after the DOR, the marriage broke down; on the judge’s findings, the “gap” between the DOR and the tentative decision to separate was several months (April to about September 2022), including continued cohabitation and a family holiday in August 2022. The legal question the court had to answer The court’s job under MCA 1973 s25 was to decide a fair outcome, giving appropriate weight to any nuptial agreement(s). Here, the question was not simply “is a PNA generally to be upheld?”, but: which agreement should carry weight in the s25 discretionary exercise, and in particular whether the DOR should be treated as the operative agreement or disregarded so the court effectively “falls back” on the 2012 PNA. HHJ Hess anchored his approach in the familiar Radmacher principles: vitiating factors (duress, fraud, misrepresentation), and also “undue pressure” or exploitation of a dominant position can reduce or eliminate the weight to be attached to an agreement. The husband’s attacks on the DOR (and why they failed) The husband’s case (advanced by Ms Phipps KC) was, in broad terms, that the DOR should be given no (or minimal) weight, because it was procured in circumstances that made it unfair to hold him to it, particularly given how soon the marriage ended afterwards. The judgment deals with three main strands of attack: A) Alleged misrepresentation / “orchestrated plan” to procure the DOR The husband alleged the wife never intended to continue the marriage, and effectively “pretended” to do so to secure the DOR, describing it as the culmination of a plan and that her behaviour changed immediately after signing. HHJ Hess rejected that account in strong terms. He found the wife credible, supported by contemporaneous communications, and found that she genuinely hoped the marriage would improve, including through therapy and through the “underlining of equality” introduced by the DOR. He also found continued cohabitation into summer 2022 and treated the “switch flicked” narrative as unsustainable on a close analysis. Practical point: If a party wants to argue that a mid-marriage variation/revocation was induced by deception about continuing the marriage, the court will look hard at contemporaneous evidence and the overall timeline. Allegations pitched as quasi-fraudulent require solid proof; otherwise they can backfire badly (including on costs, as happened here). B) Undue pressure / lack of free choice The judge accepted that the husband had a “difficult choice”, but held that a difficult choice is still a choice. Critically, the husband had proper advice (including warnings that the DOR could be disadvantageous), understood the potential consequences, and nonetheless chose to sign. He was described as a mature, experienced businessman, with no vulnerability comparable to cases where an agreement was set aside due to exploitation of vulnerability. The judge also rejected any suggestion of an ultimatum by the wife. He reinforced this with the point (drawing analogy from the PNA context) that some pressure is “commonplace” in agreement-making; something more is required to reach the threshold of undue pressure as a vitiating factor. C) “Too quick a breakdown” and “too big a swing” as a fairness reason to disregard the DOR This was essentially a plea that, even if not vitiated, the DOR should be disregarded as unfair because the marriage ended soon afterwards and the difference between DOR-outcome and PNA-outcome was very large. HHJ Hess did not accept that this justified ignoring the DOR. He treated agreement certainty as important, and expressly endorsed the proposition that parties who go to the effort of formal nuptial agreements, with advice, should ordinarily be held to them absent something fundamental undermining them. The weight ultimately given to the DOR The judge held that the DOR was a “magnetic factor” for the capital outcome and rejected the husband’s case that the court should disregard it in favour of the earlier PNA. This is the key doctrinal takeaway: a properly-advised, formally executed Deed of Revocation/variation made during marriage can carry very substantial weight (potentially overriding an earlier PNA), even if the relationship collapses comparatively soon after, unless a genuine vitiating factor is proved. How the weight translated into the final outcome Because the DOR contemplated equal sharing, the court’s capital approach was essentially equal division of the asset base (subject to some adjustments, including tax). The total asset base was found to be about £19.95m and the judge proceeded on an equal division basis, targeting approximately £9.976m for the wife (subject to sharing a later-emerged tax liability). He anticipated implementation via (among other steps) transfer of the FMH to the husband and Flats E & F to the wife, “Wells sharing” for certain EIS shareholdings, and transfers from joint assets (mainly the investment portfolio) to equalise. Spousal maintenance was dismissed both ways (clean break) given the scale of capital. Costs consequences tied to the DOR issue A notable practical feature is that the DOR fight had costs consequences. HHJ Hess said the husband’s argument to disregard the DOR “was never a strong one” and became unreasonable to pursue to trial once the factual matrix was clear, particularly in light of how the wife rebutted the misrepresentation narrative. He made a summary costs contribution order of £100,000 payable by the husband to the wife (added to the sum needed to equalise). This is a warning: in “agreement weight” litigation, if the evidential basis for vitiation is thin, persisting with serious allegations (especially quasi-fraud) can trigger an adverse costs order. What this case adds, in practical terms Revocation deeds can be outcome-determinative, not just “background” This judgment treats a DOR as capable of being the dominant agreement in the s25 exercise, effectively displacing an earlier PNA. Timing alone (DOR signed shortly before separation) is not enough A short-ish interval between signing and breakdown did not, by itself, justify ignoring the DOR. Advice, warnings, and understanding matter hugely The court put weight on the husband’s legal and financial advice (including warnings), his understanding of what he might be giving away, and his maturity and experience. Alleging deception about continuing the marriage is hard The court scrutinised contemporaneous messages and actual conduct; mere inference from “it ended soon after” was not enough. For family law advice and family court representation contact Stephanie Heijdra direct access family barrister via sheijdra[@]winvolvedlegal.co.uk

A decision of Peel J addressing the threshold stage of Part III MFPA 1984 proceedings and the protective use of land registration restrictions .

A legal analysis of Re (Children: s.37 Direction) [2025] EWHC 2464 (Fam) , focusing on the High Court’s intervention in entrenched private law proceedings and the significance of the use of sections 37 and 38 of the Children Act 1989 . 1. Context and background This case arose out of long-running and highly conflicted private law proceedings concerning four children, referred to as A, B, C and D . The litigation history was characterised by: Findings of abuse against the father , and Findings of alienating behaviour by the mother . Despite the private law framework, the court was increasingly concerned that the children were being exposed to serious emotional harm , and potentially wider welfare risks, arising from the parents’ conduct and the entrenched nature of the dispute. The case therefore reached a point where the court considered that private law mechanisms were no longer sufficient to safeguard the children. 2. The statutory framework a. Section 37 Children Act 1989 A section 37 direction empowers the court, in private law proceedings, to require a local authority to investigate whether care or supervision proceedings should be issued where it appears that a child may be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. It represents a threshold-crossing moment , signalling that the court considers the concerns to be potentially serious enough to justify public law intervention. b. Section 38 Children Act 1989 Under section 38 , the court may make interim care orders (ICOs) once public law proceedings are underway or anticipated, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the threshold criteria are met and where such orders are necessary to safeguard the children pending final determination. The making of ICOs alongside a s.37 direction is exceptional , but not unlawful, where the court considers immediate protective measures are required. 3. Why the court intervened The High Court’s decision reflects a cumulative assessment of risk rather than a single incident. Key factors included: The co-existence of abuse and alienation , creating a toxic emotional environment for the children. The failure of private law orders to bring stability or reduce harm. The risk that the children were being placed in an intolerable loyalty conflict , undermining their emotional and psychological development. The concern that without decisive intervention, the children would continue to be exposed to chronic harm through parental conflict . The court was clear that this was not a routine escalation , but a necessary response to a situation that had become unmanageable within the private law sphere. 4. The making of interim care orders a. Legal justification The court was satisfied that: There were reasonable grounds to believe that the children had suffered, or were likely to suffer, significant harm. The harm was attributable not only to discrete acts, but to patterns of parental behaviour over time . Immediate protective oversight by the local authority was required pending the outcome of the s.37 investigation. Accordingly, interim care orders were made in respect of all four children . b. Significance of ICOs for all siblings The decision to make ICOs for each child underscores an important principle: Where harm arises from a shared family dynamic , the court is entitled to treat siblings collectively rather than artificially separating their welfare analysis. The court recognised that differential orders would risk fragmenting decision-making and potentially compounding harm. 5. Key principles reinforced by the judgment The case reinforces several important themes in modern family law: Private law disputes can become public law cases Where parental conflict, abuse, or alienation reaches a level of significant harm, the court will not hesitate to involve the state. Alienation can justify public law intervention Particularly when combined with abuse findings, alienating behaviour may amount to emotional harm of a degree sufficient to engage the public law threshold. The court’s duty is proactive, not passive The court is not confined to the remedies sought by the parties; it must act where child protection concerns emerge. Sibling welfare must be viewed holistically Harm affecting family dynamics can justify uniform protective orders across all children. 6. Practical and procedural significance For practitioners, the case is a reminder that: Repeated, entrenched litigation can itself become evidence of harm . A s.37 direction is not merely investigative; it can be the gateway to immediate public law orders . Courts are increasingly alert to the combined impact of abuse and alienation , rather than treating them as competing narratives. 7. Conclusion Re (Children: s.37 Direction) [2025] EWHC 2464 (Fam) illustrates a decisive judicial response to a private law case that had crossed the threshold into child protection territory . The making of a section 37 direction, coupled with interim care orders under section 38, reflects the court’s conclusion that the children’s welfare could no longer wait for parental resolution . The case stands as a clear example of the court’s willingness to reframe private law disputes as public law concerns where the facts demand it. For family law advice and family court representation contact Stephanie Heijdra direct access family barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk