<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Family Law Brief Update</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com</link>
	<description>The latest news on uk family law court cases</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:29:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Kremen v Agrest (No.11) (Financial Remedy: Non-Disclosure: Post Nuptial Agreeement) [2012] EWHC 45 (fam) (19 January 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/kremen-v-agrest-no-11-financial-remedy-non-disclosure-post-nuptial-agreeement-2012-ewhc-45-fam-19-january-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/kremen-v-agrest-no-11-financial-remedy-non-disclosure-post-nuptial-agreeement-2012-ewhc-45-fam-19-january-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:29:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=85</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court conducted a final hearing in this long running litigation in the absence of the Husband, who did not attend. The court order a lump sum of £12.5m to the wife (£8.3m constituting maintenance). Funds held in court were &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/kremen-v-agrest-no-11-financial-remedy-non-disclosure-post-nuptial-agreeement-2012-ewhc-45-fam-19-january-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/kremen-v-agrest-no-11-financial-remedy-non-disclosure-post-nuptial-agreeement-2012-ewhc-45-fam-19-january-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Galloway v Goldstein [2012] EWHC 60 (Fam) (16 January 20120</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/galloway-v-goldstein-2012-ewhc-60-fam-16-january-20120/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/galloway-v-goldstein-2012-ewhc-60-fam-16-january-20120/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=83</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court granted a declaration that a marriage ceremony undertaken in the UK had no legal effect as the parties had previously undergone a valid marriage ceremony in Connecticut, US. The court deplored the practice of participating in two ostensibly &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/galloway-v-goldstein-2012-ewhc-60-fam-16-january-20120/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/galloway-v-goldstein-2012-ewhc-60-fam-16-january-20120/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hutchings-Whelan v Hutchings [2012] EWCA Civ 38 (26 January 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/hutchings-whelan-v-hutchings-2012-ewca-civ-38-26-january-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/hutchings-whelan-v-hutchings-2012-ewca-civ-38-26-january-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:19:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The CA refused a Husband&#8217;s appeal against an order in Ancillary ReFief proceedings. Permission had been granted to appeal on specific &#8216;arithmetical&#8217; points. the CA however held that the Husband&#8217;s conduct throughout 10 years of litigation and the trial itself &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/hutchings-whelan-v-hutchings-2012-ewca-civ-38-26-january-2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/02/hutchings-whelan-v-hutchings-2012-ewca-civ-38-26-january-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>V v V [2011] EWHC 3230 (Fam) (21 December 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/v-v-v-2011-ewhc-3230-fam-21-december-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/v-v-v-2011-ewhc-3230-fam-21-december-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:14:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=73</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court allowed a Husband&#8217;s appeal against an ancillary relief order in which he received no Mesher charge over the Wife&#8217;s property. The court considered the effect of a marriage settlement entered into by the parties prior to their marriage, &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/v-v-v-2011-ewhc-3230-fam-21-december-2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/v-v-v-2011-ewhc-3230-fam-21-december-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>P &amp; L (minors) Re, [2011] EWHC 3431 (Fam) (20 December 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/p-l-minors-re-2011-ewhc-3431-fam-20-december-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/p-l-minors-re-2011-ewhc-3431-fam-20-december-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:13:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=71</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court considered a non-traditional family set up where 2 siblings lived with their biological mother and her female partner and their biological Father who had PR lived with his male partner. The court had previously found the elder child &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/p-l-minors-re-2011-ewhc-3431-fam-20-december-2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/p-l-minors-re-2011-ewhc-3431-fam-20-december-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SH v MM &amp; Anor [2011] EWHC 3314 (Fam) (13 December 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/sh-v-mm-anor-2011-ewhc-3314-fam-13-december-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/sh-v-mm-anor-2011-ewhc-3314-fam-13-december-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=69</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The court held that a Mother&#8217;s arrangement of the removal of a child to Italy in breach of a PSO which had been served on her constituted a wrongful removal and that therefore the child remained habitually resident in the &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/sh-v-mm-anor-2011-ewhc-3314-fam-13-december-2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/sh-v-mm-anor-2011-ewhc-3314-fam-13-december-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A v L [2011] EWHC 3150 (Fam) (7 December 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/a-v-l-2011-ewhc-3150-fam-7-december-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/a-v-l-2011-ewhc-3150-fam-7-december-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:13:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=67</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Moor J allowed in part a Husband&#8217;s appeal from an ancillary relief judgment in a small money case. He discharged the orders for periodical payments and for the sale of the FMH to be deferred for two years but maintained &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/a-v-l-2011-ewhc-3150-fam-7-december-2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/a-v-l-2011-ewhc-3150-fam-7-december-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Q (A child) [2011] EWCA Civ 1610 (21 December 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/q-a-child-2011-ewca-civ-1610-21-december-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/q-a-child-2011-ewca-civ-1610-21-december-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:29:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=65</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The CA upheld a judgment that a child Q&#8217;s needs and welfare required adoption notwithstanding the availability of her Father to care for her in circumstances where Q, the Mother and other family members would be a significant risk of &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/q-a-child-2011-ewca-civ-1610-21-december-2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/q-a-child-2011-ewca-civ-1610-21-december-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A and L (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1611 (21 December 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/a-and-l-children-2011-ewca-civ-1611-21-december-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/a-and-l-children-2011-ewca-civ-1611-21-december-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=63</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The CA upheld a judgment following a complex fact finding hearing at the conclusion of which a Judge found that a mother had been complicit in the sexual abuse of her children. The Mother had sought to appeal based on &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/a-and-l-children-2011-ewca-civ-1611-21-december-2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2012/01/a-and-l-children-2011-ewca-civ-1611-21-december-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>H v S [2011] EWHC B23 (Fam) (18 November 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2011/12/h-v-s-2011-ewhc-b23-fam-18-november-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2011/12/h-v-s-2011-ewhc-b23-fam-18-november-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:07:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editorial Team</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/?p=61</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court determined the question of whether for the purposes of English divorcer and connected proceedings a Talaq pronounced by the respondent Husband in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia and placed by Deed of confirmation before the Sharia Court is entitled &#8230; <a href="http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2011/12/h-v-s-2011-ewhc-b23-fam-18-november-2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.familylawbriefupdate.com/2011/12/h-v-s-2011-ewhc-b23-fam-18-november-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

