<?xml version="1.0"?><?xml-stylesheet title = "XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="/RSS/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><docs>https://s1-uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/WLN-PLCUK-SC_2603.1.2004/productViews/plcuk/</docs><category>Legal updates</category><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com</link><title>Family</title><description>Family</description><item><title>View from the President's Chambers: April 2026</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5f91fcd12e6a11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5f91fcd12e6a11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 1 April 2026, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, published his View from the President's Chambers ahead of his retirement on 13 April 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5f91fcd12e6a11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Schedule 1 orders made where periodical payments order in force before child's sixteenth birthday (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I154c67bd2dc911f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I154c67bd2dc911f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Ogbedo v Taiga [2026] EWHC 411 (Fam), the High Court adopted a purposive interpretation to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 and determined that it does not apply to variation applications to prevent the court from making orders under Schedule 1, where a child is over the age of 18 and is subject to special circumstances.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I154c67bd2dc911f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>President's revised guidance on allocation and gatekeeping in Family Court children proceedings published</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I89f12bea2db111f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I89f12bea2db111f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>Following a consultation that ended in October 2025, on 31 March 2026, the President's revised guidance on allocation and gatekeeping in respect of proceedings relating to children in the Family Court was published and comes into effect on 5 May 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I89f12bea2db111f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Easter vacation 2026: High Court opening hours and judicial availability</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I102af5a02dac11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I102af5a02dac11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 31 March 2026, the Judiciary published an announcement outlining court operating hours and arrangements over the Easter period.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I102af5a02dac11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Third party named for not checking AI generated citations and their details retained in court record (Family Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iec8cce032cfb11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iec8cce032cfb11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In BCP v A Mother [2026] EWFC 71 (B), the court refused to erase information from court documents about a third party who was not a party to the proceedings but had made multiple applications. The court decided it should provide the subject children with a complete record of the care proceedings. The court also named the third party in the published judgment after they had used artificial intelligence (AI) tools to help prepare their skeleton argument, which produced false citations and propositions.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iec8cce032cfb11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Free Practical Law training for all subscribers</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iec8c7f372cfb11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iec8c7f372cfb11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>Practical Law provides free training on how to use Practical Law more effectively. This is available in a variety of formats, including live webinars and training videos.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iec8c7f372cfb11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>FPR Practice Direction Update: No 1 of 2026 issued (March 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I82cee68429e611f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I82cee68429e611f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 26 March 2026, Practice Direction (PD) Update No 1 of 2026 was issued. It amends new PD 27A, which governs the preparation of court bundles in family proceedings and extends several pilot PDs.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I82cee68429e611f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Variation or revocation of post-placement contact order under section 27 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides safety net</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad964cad286211f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad964cad286211f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Re B-A (Placement order and contact order) [2026] EWCA Civ 356, Cobb LJ considered that where the court makes a post-placement contact order (section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002), the power to apply for a variation or revocation of the order (section 27) provides a safety net should family finding become difficult.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad964cad286211f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Domestic Abuse Protection Orders and Notices pilot extended until 24 November 2026</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I8809c666282f11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I8809c666282f11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (Commencement No 6, 8 and 9 and Saving Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/342) were made on 24 March 2026 and came into force on 25 March 2026. They extend the pilot for domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs) and domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) from 31 March 2026 to 24 November 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I8809c666282f11f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Financial remedy portal: new auto assign functionality grants solicitors direct access to case</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I4f7df1ad286011f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I4f7df1ad286011f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 24 March 2026, HMCTS circulated a release note outlining the new auto assign functionality added to the financial remedy portal which automatically grants solicitors direct access to a case.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I4f7df1ad286011f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>House of Lords Committee on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 launches call for evidence</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ide25e32a283411f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ide25e32a283411f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 20 March 2026, the House of Lords Committee on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 launched a call for evidence to inform its inquiry into the impact of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ide25e32a283411f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Order for alternative service outside the jurisdiction set aside to respect comity between judicial authorities (Family Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47d5cd278e11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47d5cd278e11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In A v Z [2026] EWFC 64, McKendrick J set aside an order for email service of a divorce application outside the jurisdiction because the applicant had not proved that email service was permitted in the foreign jurisdiction.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47d5cd278e11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Only registration of genetic father on child's birth certificate results in attribution of parental responsibility (Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47ae42278e11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47ae42278e11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Re J (Loss of Parental Responsibility) [2026] EWCA Civ 344, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane P, clarified that an individual registered as the father on a child's birth certificate must be the child's biological or genetic father for parental responsibility to be attributed to them by virtue of registration (section 4, Children Act 1989).</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iad47ae42278e11f1839deddf1c806e4b/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Child's habitual residence can alternate between two countries if family moves seasonally between them (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I3875132426d211f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I3875132426d211f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In KPW v MJQ [2026] EWHC 582 (Fam), Simon Colton KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, considered that where a family moves between countries on a seasonal basis, their habitual residence could change from one to the other as they move.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I3875132426d211f1a34ac71bb9879c27/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Working Together to safeguard children 2026 published</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I31fb1dd9231d11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I31fb1dd9231d11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 18 March 2026, Working Together to safeguard children 2026 was published with an easy read guide for children and families.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I31fb1dd9231d11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>National rollout of child focused courts (pathfinder courts) announced</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I9c4525b7222011f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I9c4525b7222011f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 17 March 2026, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced the national rollout of child focused courts (previously called pathfinder courts) across England and Wales, following a successful pilot in ten court areas.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I9c4525b7222011f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Family Solutions Group publishes report on the evolving role of family law professionals</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I10e829291ecb11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I10e829291ecb11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In March 2026, the Family Solutions Group (FSG) published a report, Putting children first: The evolving role of the family law professional, following a consultation in 2025. The report outlines the FSG's findings on how family law professionals can further support separating families and help reduce parental conflict to improve children's experiences. The report makes recommendations to promote a more solutions-based and child-focused approach to family law issues.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I10e829291ecb11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title> New Financial Remedies Guide 2026 published and takes effect immediately</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I470a963220cf11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I470a963220cf11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 13 March 2026, Peel J and HHJ Hess published the Financial Remedies Guide 2026 which takes effect immediately. It incorporates and supersedes the 2016 efficiency statement for hearings allocated to High Court judges, the 2022 efficiency statement for proceedings in the Financial Remedies Court (FRC) below High Court judge level, and various other guidance.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I470a963220cf11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Later registration cannot convert non-qualifying marriage into valid foreign marriage (Family Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id4a210171eff11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id4a210171eff11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In MA v WK [2025] EWFC 499, Cusworth J declined to make declarations under section 55(1) of the Family Law Act 1986, where the parties had celebrated non-qualifying Nikah ceremonies in England and sought to argue that the later registration of the ceremonies in Pakistan meant that they were capable of being recognised as valid foreign marriages. The court confirmed that the principle of lex loci celebrationis means that the law of the jurisdiction of celebration, not of later registration, determines the validity of a marriage.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id4a210171eff11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Psychologist expertise issues after proceedings are for Family Court rather than appeal (Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I10e7dcb91ecb11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I10e7dcb91ecb11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Re H (Children: Expertise of Witness) [2026] EWCA Civ 249, the Court of Appeal guided that where a party to concluded care proceedings has concerns about whether an instructed psychologist had the necessary expertise, they should apply to the Family Court to consider the matter rather than appeal the care order.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I10e7dcb91ecb11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Surviving Economic Abuse report highlights prevalence and dangers of economic abuse </title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I10e7d9a51ecb11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I10e7d9a51ecb11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The UK charity, Surviving Economic Abuse, has published a report, Hidden risks, fatal consequences: Economic abuse in domestic homicide reviews, which highlights the prevalence and dangers of economic abuse in family relationships and contains examples of behaviour that will assist family law practitioners and other professionals to identify signs of economic abuse.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I10e7d9a51ecb11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Funding for Family Mediation Voucher Scheme expected to continue beyond 31 March 2026</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ib5b3a8c71e1211f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ib5b3a8c71e1211f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The Ministry of Justice has confirmed to the Family Mediation Council that funding for the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme is expected to continue beyond 31 March 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ib5b3a8c71e1211f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) Order 2026 (SI 2026/241) made and laid before Parliament</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7fb5656b1d4111f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7fb5656b1d4111f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 10 March 2026, the Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) Order 2026 (SI 2026/241) was laid before Parliament. The changes come into effect from 1 April 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7fb5656b1d4111f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>OPRC publishes summary of responses to consultation on first Online Procedure Rules (March 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I1edf40a91d3a11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I1edf40a91d3a11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 11 March 2026, the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) published a summary of responses to its consultation on the first Online Procedure Rules.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I1edf40a91d3a11f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Financial remedy online portal release note: stop representing a client function</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7fb565671d4111f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7fb565671d4111f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 11 March 2026, HMCTS circulated a release note to stakeholders, outlining the introduction of a function on the online financial remedy portal to enable solicitors to come off the record without needing to request that the court remove them from a case.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7fb565671d4111f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Radmacher does not require enforcement of foreign judgments concerning nuptial agreements to be subject to fairness (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5054d4331bd311f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5054d4331bd311f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Timokhin v Timokhina [2026] EWHC 439 (KB), Dias J granted recognition and enforcement of two Russian judgments concerning a Russian pre-nuptial agreement (PNA). Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 does not create a mandatory rule requiring foreign PNAs to be considered fair by the English courts before recognition or enforcement. It addresses how courts should approach PNAs in financial remedy proceedings, not judgment enforcement proceedings.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5054d4331bd311f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Family Procedure Rule Committee: publication of approved minutes of meeting on 2 February 2026</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7abade921bb211f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7abade921bb211f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The approved minutes of the Family Procedure Rules Committee (FPRC) meeting on 2 February 2026 have been published.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7abade921bb211f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>FPR 4.1(6) used to rectify errors in decree absolute (Family Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6e2cb7b41baa11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6e2cb7b41baa11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Labeja v Estate of Shatochina Raisa Labeja and another [2026] EWFC 53 (B), the Family Court dismissed an application to set aside a decree absolute based on fraud and procedural irregularity. Applying X v Y [2020] EWHC 1116 (Fam), the court used FPR 4.1(6) to correct clerical errors in the decree absolute relating to the spelling of the deceased respondent's name and the date of the marriage.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6e2cb7b41baa11f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Not contesting contact does not render domestic abuse allegations irrelevant and fact-finding unnecessary (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6b97d336196811f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6b97d336196811f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In GI v K [2026] EWHC 480 (Fam), the mother (M) successfully appealed against an order that the parties' child continue living with the father and spend time with M. The first instance judge was wrong to treat M's allegations of domestic abuse as irrelevant to the child's welfare simply because neither parent objected to the other having unsupervised contact. The judge should have considered the connection between the alleged abuse and the welfare decision when deciding whether a fact-finding hearing was necessary.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6b97d336196811f19e89beb9184c64d5/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Distinguish between occupation and ownership when assessing interveners' property rights (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id587c0d7194711f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id587c0d7194711f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 00:00:00 CST</pubDate><description>In Archer v Archer [2026] EWHC 468 (Fam), in financial remedy proceedings, the High Court allowed the wife's appeal against a preliminary finding based on proprietary estoppel that the husband's parents (the interveners) were beneficial owners of a property, owned by the husband and wife. The trial judge had not adequately addressed whether the assurance given to the interveners was one of ownership or merely a right to occupy. The order transferring property to the interveners was set aside and the interveners' application was remitted for rehearing.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Id587c0d7194711f182b7cb1210d47fc6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item></channel></rss>