Trusts

Trusts

The court must consider the financial resources the parties have or are likely to have in the foreseeable future under section 25(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and Schedule 5, Part 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). If a party to a marriage or civil partnership is a beneficiary or potential beneficiary under a trust, their interest may be regarded as a financial resource. The court's approach will depend on the nature of their interest and the broader circumstances of the case. A trust may be varied if it is a nuptial settlement—‘relevant settlement’ is the terminology adopted by CPA 2004, Sch 5, Pt 5. Questions of trusts or property law may also need to be determined within financial remedy proceedings.

The court has three main methods of approaching trusts within an application for a financial remedy:

•
treating trust income or assets as a resource available to either party (or declining to do so)—see: Introduction to trusts within financial proceedings — Trusts as a financial resource
•
exercising its power to vary a nuptial settlement under

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This edition includes details of the most recent View from the President’s Chambers and updated guidance on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) released by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Recent judgments, including the Supreme Court's dismissal of an appeal against the discharge of injunctions prohibiting identification of the clinicians involved in treating gravely ill children, consideration of intermediary assistance in care proceedings and the use of a Hadkinson order are also set out.

The Supreme Court holds that anonymity for clinicians in withdrawal of treatment cases involving children should normally be of limited duration (Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust)

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the hospitals’ appeals in these cases concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children. There was no basis on which anonymity injunctions in relation to clinicians could be continued indefinitely. If anonymity is sought in such cases beyond a cooling-off period following the child’s death or withdrawal of treatment, the application should be made by the clinicians concerned. Such applications should be supported by specific evidence and the need for any restriction of freedom of expression must be established convincingly. Hannah Markham KC and Madeleine Whelan of 36 Family, Louise Sivey and Eloise Carey of Bates Wells, and Professor Carmen Draghici of the University of London comment on the judgment.

A View from the President's Chambers: April 2025

The latest View from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, provides an overview of recent updates and ongoing initiatives within the family justice system. This edition covers a wide array of topics, including the relaunch of the Public Law Outline (PLO), the Pathfinder model for private children cases, transparency, judicial security, CAFCASS domestic abuse guidance, the Planning together for Children and Working Together for Children programmes, the express financial remedy procedure pilot, recent and upcoming publications from the Family Justice Council, a new resource from the Family Justice Young People’s Board entitled ‘Safe Family Time’ and the publication of the Toolkit for Judges Writing to Children. Additionally, it provides an update on the appointment of new High Court judges.

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary publishes updated AI guidance and introduces Copilot Chat for judges

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published updated guidance on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), replacing its December 2023 guidance. The updated guidance expands the glossary of AI terms and adds new sections on misinformation, bias and dataset quality. It introduces Microsoft Copilot Chat for judicial office holders through eJudiciary accounts and establishes that litigants bear responsibility for AI-generated information presented to courts. The guidance applies to all judicial office holders, clerks, assistants and support staff under the Lady Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals.