Family law moves in small steps, but those steps matter. A single judgment can sharpen how the court approaches marriage validity, interim maintenance, legal funding or the consequences of non-disclosure. For clients and practitioners alike, the detail matters because it shapes leverage, risk and strategy now, not in hindsight.
In this weekly update, Frank Arndt, highlights three recent decisions and explains what they are likely to mean in practice for those dealing with complex family law issues in England and Wales.
Marriage validity or lex loci celebrationis
In MA v WK [2025] EWFC 499, the Family Court considered whether religious Nikkah ceremonies conducted in England could later be treated as valid marriages because they were subsequently registered in Pakistan. The applicants argued that the foreign registration gave legal effect to the unions. The Attorney General argued that the governing principle remained the law of the place where the ceremony took place: lex loci celebrationis. Recent reporting on the judgment confirms that the court treated the ceremonies as non-qualifying where the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949 had not been met, and that later overseas registration could not cure that defect.
Mr Justice Cusworth held that retrospective foreign registration could not convert a non-qualifying ceremony in England into a valid marriage recognised here. The court also made clear that the presumption of marriage does not assist where there is clear evidence that the required legal formalities were never completed. On that basis, the applications for declarations of marital status failed.
The practical point is straightforward. Where a ceremony takes place in England and Wales, parties cannot safely assume that later administrative steps abroad will repair a failure to comply with domestic formalities. For couples who believe they are married, the consequences can be significant, particularly in relation to financial claims, inheritance and status. This is exactly the sort of issue where early legal analysis matters.
Source: MA v WK [2025] EWFC 499 (25 November 2025)
MPS/LSPO
Interim maintenance & legal funding in an international divorce case
In A & Z, Re (Service Out; MPS; LSPO) [2026] EWFC 64, the court dealt with a high-value international divorce dispute involving competing jurisdictions, service issues and applications for Maintenance Pending Suit and a Legal Services Payment Order. Coverage of the decision confirms that the court set aside the earlier order for alternative service by email, reflecting concerns about international comity and the position of the United States.
The court nevertheless went on to consider interim financial support and litigation funding. It awarded both MPS and an LSPO, but at levels materially below those sought. The case is now moving toward a forum hearing to determine the appropriate jurisdiction for the divorce proceedings.
The practical lesson is that the court will still intervene to preserve fairness during jurisdictional and procedural disputes, but it will do so with care. In international cases involving wealth, pre-nuptial agreements and competing foreign proceedings, procedural points are not separate from financial strategy. They often drive it.
Source: A & Z, Re (Service Out; MPS; LSPO) [2026] EWFC 64 (18 March 2026)
Non-Disclosure (Gohil & Sharland)
In De La Sala & Anor v De La Sala & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 282, the Court of Appeal dealt with two linked appeals arising from a financial remedy dispute. Recent legal reporting identifies the case as involving an appeal by the husband against an order setting aside a consent order for material non-disclosure, together with a separate appeal concerning gifts made by the wife’s mother.
The court upheld the decision to set aside the consent order because the husband had failed to disclose knowledge of impending gifts worth many millions of dollars from the wife’s family. The court treated that information as material because it fundamentally altered the financial landscape and the proper assessment of needs. At the same time, the mother’s attempt to recover the gifted funds failed because the transfers were treated as unconditional gifts rather than payments subject to an enforceable condition.
The wider significance is familiar but important. The duty of full and frank disclosure remains central to financial remedy litigation. Where non-disclosure is deliberate and material, the court will still be prepared to unravel an order. Equally, once substantial voluntary gifts have been made outright, the court will be slow to rewrite their legal character after the event.
Source: De La Sala & Anor v De La Sala & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 282 (17 March 2026)
What Practitioners and Clients Should Take From These Cases
These decisions point in the same direction. The court continues to insist on legal formality, procedural discipline and proper disclosure. That applies whether the issue is the validity of a marriage, the mechanics of international service, or the integrity of a financial remedy order.
For those involved in complex family disputes, especially where there is an international dimension or substantial wealth, the underlying message is the same: technical points are often outcome-shaping points.
Need help?
If you are navigating a divorce, jurisdiction challenge, children matter or financial remedy proceedings, early strategic advice can make a significant difference.
Paradigm Family Law offers a free initial consultation and fixed-fee solutions, giving clarity on cost from the outset. The team advises clients across England and Wales, including those with international, business, and high-value financial arrangements.
For a confidential discussion about your situation, contact Frank Arndt or Evelyn Peacock, call 01904 217225 or email info@paradigmfamilylaw.co.uk.
Additional reading
For additional reading on financial remedy strategy and complex divorce litigation, see our wider commentary and case analysis across the Paradigm Family Law library:
