A woman has been granted permission to appeal the ruling of a case that the treasurer of Resolution has called "the most significant divorce case of the century so far". Here we take a look at the development of Owens v Owens, before it reaches the Supreme Court.
News that the Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in Mills v Mills provides a perfect opportunity to review the facts and developments of the case to this point.
Read more: As Mills v Mills moves to Supreme Court, we ask what we know so far
An undertaking is a promise to the Court that you will, or will not, do something. Undertakings are useful to use when the Court cannot order that you take a certain action. For example, the Court cannot order the mortgage company to release your Husband or Wife from the mortgage. You can give a promise to do everything you can to release the other party from the mortgage and, until recently, it was thought that this was a pretty safe way of ensuring that the Wife could stay in the property, paying the mortgage, and the Husband would be discharged from those obligations. This is especially important if being named on one mortgage will stop him being named on another and buying his own property in the future.
It is an unavoidable truth that despite many years of lobbying, political discourse and, of course, limited but important legislative action, women still do not enjoy equal opportunity in the workplace.
This is as true in the law as it is in any other profession, if not more so. Making a successful career as a lawyer or barrister is difficult enough, but combining it with life as a mother is especially problematic. In the vast majority of cases, women who combine a profession in the law with motherhood, must find a way to successfully marry the unpredictable nature of legal work and all its travel, urgencies, emergencies and considerable pressures with the inherently demanding responsibilities of looking after children.
This is just one, but nonetheless, important reason why the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service proposal to trial early and late opening courts should be resisted.
The case of Green v Adams [2017] EWFC 24 serves as a useful illustration of the application of family law in regard to capital provision for children of parents who have separated and are no longer living together.
The case was begun on 5 April 2013 when the mother of a 16-year old boy made plain her desire to seek an additional capital sum to pay for a replacement car, travel expenses for her child, and miscellaneous capital expenses, including a new laptop for the child, and for periodical payments. This claim was made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.
