Family law does not stand still. Each new judgment refines how courts approach financial remedies, children disputes and jurisdiction. We monitor those shifts closely. Frank Arndt’s detailed command of case law has earned him a longstanding reputation for forensic analysis.
Recent decisions from the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal directly influence litigation strategy, settlement leverage, enforcement options and forum disputes. These rulings are not academic. They determine risk and outcome.
For high-net-worth and internationally connected families, the consequences can be significant. Asset structures, cross-border exposure and forum selection amplify both opportunity and risk. However, even in domestic cases, a subtle shift in judicial approach can alter outcome and cost trajectory.
This week, two decisions merit particular attention:
Mazur Hearing
Remote Observation & Section 85A Courts Act 2003
In Mazur and others v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (Claim number: CA-2025-002754), the Court of Appeal confirmed on 23 February 2025 that any non-party seeking permission to watch or listen to a remote hearing must make a formal application under section 85A(3)(b) of the Courts Act 2003.
A person who is not participating in proceedings must comply strictly with the terms of the court’s order. That includes giving undertakings, including a clear undertaking not to record the hearing.
The court reinforced that remote access is not automatic. Transparency must operate within a structured procedural framework.
For family practitioners, this decision clarifies the formal route for remote observation. It also confirms that the court will balance open justice against the integrity of proceedings.
In complex financial remedy cases, particularly those involving reputational or commercial sensitivity, that procedural clarity matters.
Jurisdiction – Habitual Residence, Forum and Hemain Injunctions
In AO v EO [2026] EWFC 30 (B) (06 February 2025), His Honour Judge Edward Hess considered whether the English court had jurisdiction to determine a divorce involving a Nigerian couple with substantial connections to both England and Nigeria.
The court found that the wife had established habitual residence in England at the date of her application and had maintained residence here for the preceding year.
That factual finding grounded jurisdiction.
The judge then examined forum. He concluded that England and Wales constituted the natural forum. The family’s long-term integration into English life and the location of primary real estate assets were central factors.
The husband sought a stay in favour of Nigerian proceedings. The court refused that application.
The court also extended the existing Hemain injunction to restrain parallel proceedings in West Africa.
The judgment concluded with financial directions and a summary assessment of costs. The husband was ordered to pay £75,000 out of £129,000.
Source: AO v EO [2026] EWFC 30 (B) (06 February 2025)
Why This Matters
Habitual residence remains a fact-sensitive inquiry. The court will examine integration, permanence and objective connection.
Forum disputes can significantly alter financial outcomes. England and Wales apply a discretionary framework under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. That framework often differs materially from overseas jurisdictions.
Where parallel proceedings arise, Hemain relief remains an important strategic tool. However, the court will only grant it where justice and effective case management require intervention.
For internationally mobile families, early jurisdiction analysis is critical. Delay can determine outcome.
At Paradigm Family Law, we analyse jurisdiction at the outset of every cross-border instruction. Forum is not procedural detail. It is outcome architecture.
Strategic Takeaway
This week’s decisions reinforce two themes:
- The courts continue to formalise procedural transparency.
- Jurisdiction disputes remain central to international financial remedy strategy.
As Frank Arndt observes:
Family law evolves incrementally. Those incremental shifts determine leverage.
Speak to a Specialist Family Lawyer
If you face a cross-border divorce, a jurisdiction challenge or complex financial remedy proceedings, early strategic advice is essential.
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.
To speak with Frank Arndt or Evelyn Peacock, call 01904 217225 or email info@paradigmfamilylaw.co.uk.
Recommended Reading
Moving Abroad as an Expat Family: Why Legal Planning Matters Before You Go
Protecting International Wealth and Complex Assets During Divorce
Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements: Planning for Love, Life, and Legal Certainty
