At Paradigm Family Law LLP, we believe that exceptional family law advice begins with absolute clarity on where the law stands – not last year, not last month, but this week.
Each week, the Family Court, High Court and appellate courts hand down decisions that quietly, and sometimes profoundly, shift the landscape in financial remedies, children disputes, enforcement, and jurisdictional challenges.
For international high-net-worth individuals and internationally connected families, these developments are not academic. They shape litigation strategy, settlement leverage, risk assessment and outcome prediction.
Family Law Division : Financial Remedy
Trust/Anonymisation
In MK v SK [2026] EWFC 28 (11 February 2026), Peel J delivered judgement in a case between a H and W following a 19-year marriage.
The central conflict involves the W’s allegations of non-disclosure [68] – [69] , specifically that the husband used complex trust structures and corporate entities to hide substantial wealth while presenting himself as nearly insolvent [70] .
Mr Justice Peel concluded that H was the ultimate beneficial owner of undisclosed assets, partially based on a “whiteboard” organogram discovered by W in October ’23 / May ’24 – [73] . Despite H’s claims that his technology group was collapsing, the court found he maintained access to concealed resources through professional ciphers.
Ultimately, his lordship ordered H to pay lump sums exceeding £2mil (€2.3m / USD2.73m) and transfer a mortgage-free home to meet the wife’s long-term financial needs. This ruling emphasizes that courts may draw adverse inferences when a party fails to provide a transparent account of their global financial interests.
Source: MK v SK [2026] EWFC 28 (11 February 2026)
Legal Service Order
In DR v ES and Ors (Further LSPO Application) [2026] EWFC 15 (30 January 2026), Mr Justice MacDonald granted a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO) of £560,120 to fund both historic and future legal costs, reinforcing the principle that financial remedy litigation must proceed on a genuine level playing field, particularly where one party adopts obstructive litigation tactics.
Key principles for granting an LSPO: Under ss.22ZA–22ZB MCA 1973, the court must be satisfied that the applicant cannot reasonably secure funding elsewhere (commercial lending, Sears Tooth arrangements, or asset-based borrowing).
The court then considers:
- The parties’ respective resources, needs, and ability to pay
- The merits and issues in the proceedings
- Whether the applicant has acted reasonably, including attempts to avoid litigation
- The respondent’s ability to fund the payment without undue hardship
- The overriding objective of ensuring equality of arms
Although primarily prospective, LSPOs may include historic unpaid costs where failure to discharge those liabilities would prevent solicitors from continuing to act.
Impact of the H’s litigation conduct : The H’s obstructive conduct, including deficiencies in disclosure and resistance to reasonable case progression, significantly influenced the court’s approach. Where litigation conduct creates cost pressure on the financially weaker party, the court is prepared to make robust funding orders to prevent procedural disadvantage.
Significance of the preliminary issue: beneficial ownership of Company Y: A central preliminary issue concerned the beneficial ownership of Company Y, which directly affected the assessment of the H’s true resources and therefore his ability to fund the LSPO. Determining that issue early ensured that the funding decision was grounded in a realistic appraisal of available assets and prevented the ownership dispute from being used tactically to delay or resist litigation funding.
Takeaway: LSPO jurisprudence continues to demonstrate that the Family Court will intervene decisively where funding inequality risks distorting the fairness of financial remedy proceedings—particularly where one party’s litigation conduct contributes to the imbalance.
Cost
In LP v MP [2026] EWFC 36 (27th January 2026), the Family Court judge addresses a costs application following a contentious financial remedy case.
Mr Justice Cusworth condemns W’s persistent refusal to engage with court procedures, her failure to attend multiple hearings, and her submission of false evidence [1(a) – (c) ]. Because she rejected a reasonable settlement offer and engaged in litigation misconduct that forced the husband to incur significant legal fees, the court ruled that her behavior was “out of the norm” [9] – [10].
Consequently, the judge ordered the wife to pay £275,000 (US$375,375 or €315,975) or 85% of the husband’s legal costs (£324,352 = $442,740 or €372,680), a sum to be deducted from her final divorce settlement. The ruling emphasises that while the court usually makes no order for costs in family cases, indemnity costs are justified when a party acts unreasonably or dishonestly – see OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, at §38 and §90.
Chancery Division – Trust
Cator & Ors v Thynn & Anor [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch) (06 February 2026), concerns an application by trustees of the Longleat family trusts to join a representative defendant to a claim.
The trustees seek judicial approval for a plan to exercise a power of advancement that would benefit the Marquess of Bath’s son, who was born via surrogacy and is currently excluded by traditional trust language.
A central focus of the ruling is the impact of the recent Denaxe decision, which altered how trustees gain legal immunity when making significant decisions. HHJ Paul Matthews found that protection from future lawsuits now relies on issue estoppel, necessitating the involvement of a defendant to represent opposing interests.
Consequently, the court appointed an independent solicitor, to act as the second defendant for those potentially disadvantaged by the trustees’ proposal. This ensures the court hears a balanced argument before deciding whether to sanction the trustees’ momentous choice.
Source: Cator & Ors v Thynn & Anor [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch) (06 February 2026)
1980 Hague Convention case
In Z (Abduction: Re-hearing After Set Aside), Re [2025] EWHC 3564 (Fam) (19 December 2025), details the refusal of F’s application for the summary return of his ten-year-old daughter to Turkey under the 1980 Hague Convention.
Although the child was wrongfully removed by M, the court determined that a return order would expose the girl to a grave risk of harm and an intolerable situation – [9]–[22],[23] and [28].
This decision was based on credible allegations of domestic abuse and the high probability that the child would be separated from her primary carer due to the mother’s genuine fear for her life and potential criminal prosecution in Turkey.
The judge concluded that the protective measures and undertakings offered by the father were unenforceable and insufficient to mitigate these risks. Ultimately, the court exercised its discretion to prioritize the child’s safety over the Convention’s general goal of prompt repatriation, thereby denying the return application.
Source: Z (Abduction: Re-hearing After Set Aside), Re [2025] EWHC 3564 (Fam) (19 December 2025)
Fabricated Allegations and Obstructed Contact
 F v M & Anor [2026] EWHC 239 (Fam) (09 February 2026), concerns a father’s application for international contact with his eight-year-old son under the 1980 Hague Convention.
The case involves M who relocated the child from the Caribbean to England without permission, later alleging that F allowed the boy to be sexually abused – [22] – [34].
After evaluating the evidence, the court rejected M’s claims, finding them unsubstantiated and influenced by her fixation on a perceived conspiracy involving a secretive organization. Conversely, the judge determined that F’s counter-allegations of alienating behaviors were proven, noting that the mother’s actions caused the child emotional and psychological harm.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the mother intentionally obstructed the paternal relationship and fabricated or exaggerated details to justify her defiance of prior court orders. Consistent with these findings, the judgment serves to establish the factual baseline necessary for determining future arrangements regarding the child’s welfare and parental access.
Source: Â F v M & Anor [2026] EWHC 239 (Fam) (09 February 2026)
Cayman Islands
In RD v YY [2026] CIGC (Fam) 1, the Court of Appeal confirmed that H’s company Buffa Ltd, established during the marriage, was a matrimonial asset and that the wife was entitled to 50% of the husband’s 50% share.
On remission, the Grand Court was directed to value the company strictly on the existing evidential record, without admitting fresh evidence, in order to avoid disproportionate factual investigation.
The court adopted a net asset valuation methodology (cash plus assets minus liabilities), rejecting the wife’s proposal to add back historic land sale profits due to insufficient evidence of misappropriation or hidden funds.
Emphasising proportionality in line with Moher v Moher, and applying the principles in J v J and Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [44] the court declined to speculate or draw adverse inferences in the absence of meaningful evidential foundation.
Source: RD v YY [2026] CIGC (Fam) 1 (20 January 2026), FAM 0018 of 2017, Grand Court (Family Division), available via the Cayman Islands Judicial Administration Unreported Judgments | Cayman Islands Law Courts database by reference to the case title.
Professional context
As a firm advising ultra-high-net-worth individuals (UHNWI) and internationally connected families, we consider it part of our professional responsibility to remain across developments that may affect corporate advisers, trustees, private equity sponsors and founder-led businesses.
Many commercial firms do not operate a specialist family law capability. Where financial remedy risk intersects with management equity, shareholder structures, trust arrangements or transaction timing, early clarity can materially reduce exposure.
The decisions above illustrate how disclosure findings, LSPO funding orders, adverse costs exposure and trust-governance rulings can directly influence valuation, liquidity planning, governance strategy and transaction sequencing.
Frank Arndt, founding partner of Paradigm Family Law LLP, is an award-winning, international and high-net-worth specialist with particular expertise in complex financial remedy strategy involving multi-jurisdictional corporate structures, trusts and worldwide asset portfolios. His work frequently intersects with offshore entities, private equity interests and concealed asset disputes, requiring forensic precision and strategic litigation control at the highest level.
We monitor these developments not in isolation, but in recognition of the increasingly interconnected nature of corporate, trust and family law risk.
Recommended reading
Protecting International Wealth and Complex Assets During Divorce
View our full collection of financial remedy and international family law articles.
