Katherine Dunseath and Frank Feehan QC discuss the Court of Appeal's judgment in Mills v Mills, which highlights the financial ties afforded by joint lives maintenance payment. Katherine Dunseath, a barrister at 3PB Barristers, and Frank Feehan QC analyse how the Court of Appeal approached a cross-application for an upward variation of a joint lives maintenance order taking into account financial decisions made by a divorcing spouse over a 15 year period.
They discuss the Court of Appeal's judgment in Mills v Mills, which highlights the financial ties afforded by joint lives maintenance payment.
English court exercises jurisdiction in retrospective leave to remove case (re X, Y and Z) – a Lexis Nexis interview by 3PB Family Barrister Katherine Dunseath and Ellis Jones' Katie Taft. Katherine Dunseath, a barrister at 3PB Barristers, and Katie Taft, a senior associate at Ellis Jones Solicitors, discuss a novel family case involving important issues of delay and settlement.
Katherine Dunseath (Call 2008) has a thriving practice advising on all aspects of family law. She regularly appears in the High Court and has appeared in the Court of Appeal on numerous occasions.
** This article was first published on Lexis®PSL. Family analysis on 25 October 2016. Click for a free trial of Lexis®PSL.
3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of Re: MM (A patient)  EWCA Civ 34, an appeal from the Court of Protection in which the appellant had been ordered to facilitate MM's return to this jurisdiction, the court having found (on a number of occasions) it to be in MM's best welfare interests to be cared for in the south west of England.
The parties compromised the appeal and the court was asked to approve a consent order, allowing the appeal, on the basis that (i) the order made had become otiose and (ii) it would be futile to subject the appellant to further coercive orders in the face of her continuing obduracy. Case remitted to the court of first instance for the proceedings to be concluded.
3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of AB (Surrogacy: Domicile)  EWFC 63, an application for parental orders in relation to two children in which the court had to determine whether at least one of the applicants could be said to be 'domiciled' in the jurisdiction at the time of the application and at the time of making the order, as required by section 54(4)(b) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.