Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast

Resolution
  • 5.0 (1)
  • Management
  • Updated Monthly

Guests take on a topical debate in family law in each episode in this podcast series from Resolution. Our hosts, Simon Blain and Anita Mehta, invite family law experts to share their experiences and anecdotes, in an insightful and entertaining conversation.

  1. May 29

    LIVE from National Conference: AI and the Risk of Bias

    Resolution’s National Conference in 2026 kicked off with our keynote session looking at the impact of AI in the justice system, including the benefits of being able to deliver justice more efficiency and the risk of it perpetuating bias that exists in the system.   We wanted to find a topic that would give our audience lots to were privileged to be joined by The Honourable Mr Justice McKendrick and Professor Rosemary Hunter King Counsel (Lead author of the Harm Panel 2020 report and co-author of the Everyday Business report 2025).    Judge tells us that the Chancellor of the High Court, the Rt Hon Lord Justice Birss is the lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, with an allocated senior for criminal, civil and family justice.  Mr Justice McKendrick is the lead judge for AI in family justice.     The Judge makes the point that AI is transforming society, and justice needs to keep up with that development.  The judiciary already has access to its own confidential AI system, and guidance was issued to the judiciary in October 2025: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdf That system can summarise bundles, summarising judgments for litigants with special educational needs, AI to translate or transcript audio, as AI hallucination checker.  However, judicial decisions always remain the responsibility of the Judge. In the same way that the High Court judiciary already have access to a judicial assistant, but decisions are made by the Judge.    Rosemary explains that there are deliberate biases in the system which we all think is a good thing, for example the child’s welfare being the paramount consideration is a form of bias.  The concern therefore only arises in respect of biases that give a party an unjustified disadvantage.  Rosemary gives example of the research in the Harm report about the ‘pro-contact culture’, which is a form of bias.  Rosemary makes the point that over-reliance on AI could lead to jurisprudential ossification i.e. continuing to use the determination that is already available rather than responding to adapting views.    The Judge referred to a speech by The President of the King’s Bench division https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-president-of-the-kings-bench-division-the-mayflower-lecture-2025/ The difference between prediction and reasoning.  That lecture goes on to look at the fact that AI is predicting based on past outcomes, whereas Judges are reasoning.  Therefore, the Judge argues there is always a difference between the judicial outcome of reasoning to the outcome and AI predicting the likely outcome based on previous data.    We went on to consider a number of judicial lectures including:  the Master of the Rolls speech on Artificial Intelligence where the Master of the Rolls opined that incivil justice routine judicial decision-making could be informed or directed by machines https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-master-of-the-rolls-artificial-intelligence-and-the-judiciary/Lord Briggs, Justice of the Supreme Court https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_lord_briggs_20052026_de46afe657.pdfFinally, we concluded with a discussion about the debate in the House of Lords about the future of financial remedy law.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-11-10/debates/1492EA41-F82F-4148-A8AB-C0F8CB5B78B7/FinancialProvisionOnDivorce   We conclude with wondering whether AI is going to fuel litigation and driving litigants to issue, or whether it will help litigants to find consensual solutions and remove unrealistic expectations, as yet it is impossible to know.

    44 min

  2. Apr 27

    Family Law Act applications and the President’s Guidance

    Are you up to date with how to apply for non-molestation orders?  Jenny Beck KC (Beck Fitzgerald), and Charlotte Baker (4PB) join us to bring us up-to-date, and discuss Family Law Act Remedies.    Jenny was the Chair of the Family Justice Council that wrote the report providing Best Practice Guidance*.  She starts by telling us why the guidance was necessary:  https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FJC-Best-Practice-Guidance-for-Practitioners-Making-an-Application-for-a-Protective-Injunction-under-the-FLA-1996-with-Annex-1.pdf   Charlotte then explains how the President’s guidance should change our practice:  https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/the-pfds-guidance-2026-non-molestation-orders-under-the-family-law-act-1996-and-the-fjcs-best-practice-guidance-for-practitioners-on-making-an-application-for-a-protective-injuncti/   Charlotte and Jenny talk about the new draft orders.  The orders no longer have the standard terms ‘not to use or threaten violence’ and ‘not to harass, intimidate and pester’.  Jenny tells us they were removed because using and threatening violence is a criminal offence and not what these orders should be about, and it is hard to prove harassing, intimidating and pestering someone.  However, she makes clear that these terms can be added back into the draft order if required.  Jenny tells us that the respondent’s details should be included on the face of the order to make the order effective.    Jenny tells us about the procedural change in the President’s guidance.  Namely, that the initial application should be heard on the papers, if that is not accepted it should be listed within a day for the applicant to make representations.  Charlotte tells us that when making an application for a non-molestation order that you need to be able to explain what is happening right now that justifies protection and why it is that an order is required.    We discuss high acrimony cases and what to do when an application for a non-molestation order is made, and the respondent attends Court accusing the applicant of being just as bad. Both Charlotte and Jenny raise concerned about the times when Judges have tried to resolve matters by cross-undertakings.    We finally discuss whether practitioners should be advising their client to go to the Police for a DAPO, why it is that clients may prefer not to the police and why it is this form of remedy needs to exist for victim-survivors who prefer not to make a complaint to the police.  *Although Jenny joined us in her personal capacity today.

    46 min

  3. Mar 30

    LIVE from Financial Advisers Conference - Economic Abuse

    Simon and Anita were privileged to be invited to speak at Resolution’s annual Financial Advisors conference. They were joined by Steve Hennessy (Beeswax Wealth Management) and Angela Lake-Carroll (ALC associates) to discuss how financial advisors see economic abuse in their day-to-day work with families.    The full detail of the discussion is in The Review in an article by Shalini Kanap (Her Financial Planning): https://resolution.org.uk/the-review/current-issue/talking-family-law-live-podcast-recording/   We did take two Slidos in the room in the room which verified what we all expected that Financial Advisors frequently see one party restricting the other party’s access to information about the finances when they separate, and that they frequently see delaying/ avoidance tactics when it comes to implementing pension shares.    We hope this podcast was part of the start of the Financial Advisors coming together to look at how they can protect their clients from on-going abuse.

    38 min

  4. Feb 23

    YRes Takeover: the five questions you really want to ask, but feel you can’t

    In this episode, Anita and Simon kindly passed the reigns to YRes members Abigail and Natalie to pick the brains of Alison Bull (Partner at Mills and Reeve) and Philip Barnsley (Partner and Head of Family at Higgs) regarding questions posed by other YRes members.      Referred to by many as Resolution Royalty, Alison and Philip are both experts in their field, having hosted the finance update at Resolutions National conference for several years.   The episode starts by considering some of the signs to look for when domestic abuse is an issue in a case, including when the clients themselves don’t recognise it.  Alison highlights the importance of asking domestic abuse screening questions and shares the following resources:  ·       Domestic abuse screening information via Resolution website - Domestic Abuse Screening Information | Resolution ·       Family mediation council guidance - Mediation-Screening-and-Assessment-Resource-Final-Draft-for-Consultation-Updated.pdf   Phil then goes on to discuss conduct in financial remedy proceedings, whether we should plead it and the practical implications of doing so, as well as the different schools of thought currently developing through case law.    Cases mentioned:  ·       N v J [2024] EWFC 184 ·       Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130 ·       LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 ·       Wei-Lyn Loh v Ardal Loh-Gronager [2025] EWFC 483 ·       OG v AG (Financial Remedies: Conduct) [2020] EWFC 52    Other resources mentioned:  ·       The Law and Disorder Podcast hosted by Nicholas Mostyn,  Helena Kennedy and Charlie Falconer  ·       Resolution Report “Domestic abuse in financial remedy proceedings”    Alison and Phil also consider Form E preparation and the importance of case strategy generally, as well as pitching capital needs and income needs budgets. Alison notes, anecdotally, the difference in approach between contested proceedings and mediation and questions to what extent AI might change things.    Cases mentioned:  ·       AH v BH [2024] EWFC 125   The episode concludes with discussion around spousal maintenance and the difficulties many face when advising clients given the uncertainty of the current law.

    48 min

  5. Jan 26

    Repealing the presumption of parental involvement: practitioner guidance

    On the 22nd October 2025, it was announced that the government is going to repeal the presumption of parental involvement in s1(2A) of the Children Act 1989.  Our hosts Simon Blain and Anita Mehta, ask Mary McKaskill (National Centre for Social Research), Natalie Sutherland (International Family Law Group LLP) and Sarah Williams (Forsters) about what the research to support that change shows and what it means in practice. Natalie reminds us that the recommendation to review this section appeared in the Harm Report from June 2020. The MOJ announced that there would be a review in November 2020 and this is the report. The review of the presumption of parental involvement involved three research projects commissioned by the MOJ. Mary was the Lead Researcher in the team that undertook the judgment analysis. They reviewed 245 judgments from eight courts including one in Wales. There was also a literature review of academic papers and grey literature by Alma Economics and qualitative research in the form of interviews with Black, Asian and Ethnic minorities by the Race Equality Foundation. The MOJ report Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f5f5c206e6515f7914c7e3/Review_of_the_Presumption_of_Parental_Involvement_Final_Report_.pdf Mary was clear that the judgment analysis had to grapple with challenges such as variability of data, lack of accessibility, struggling to find records of the actual judgment, the detail of the specifics of the order or how a specific decision was reached.  There is also always a risk of bias or that certain experiences were not captured given this was a sample. Nevertheless, the report does find: More times than not, some form of child arrangement is ordered.  The report found that the courts did follow a ‘no stone unturned’ approach to foster involvement with both parents even where there was found to be a risk of harm.That it was not possible to understand from the study what weight the presumption had in decision making.However, involvement was almost always ordered, even where there were risks, so the report expresses concern that this is in contradiction with the child’s welfare.The report was unable to explore the long-term impact of the orders that are being made, which would require a longitudinal study. Natalie and Sarah go on to discuss the impact of this report, together with the review of the first pathfinder pilot, ‘Understanding the Experience of Children and Families’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695544d06a4ea67a402a839c/Private_Law_Pathfinder_Pilot.pdf Natalie noted that in the review of Pathfinder, there were parents who appreciated the efficiency of Pathfinder, but others who felt they had not been heard.  Sarah was concerned that Pathfinder is dependent on support being provided from charitable partners and that is dependent on their availability.  Natalie considered whether the removal of review hearings has had an impact on outcomes, and whether this should have remained part of Pathfinder. Mary concludes by telling us that the report found that the voice of the child is not heard in private law proceedings. The finding was that children’s voices were amplified when they agreed with the Court, i.e. wanting contact but diminished when they did not. In/Fertility in the City – Natalie’s podcast with Somaya Ouzzani, can be accessed on their webpage: https://infertilityinthecity.com/.

    37 min

  6. 12/15/2025

    Conduct - an extra special joint episode with Law & Disorder

    Should misconduct be taken into account when an equitable division of assets is being attempted following a divorce? This is an extra special episode where we joined forces with the well-known legal podcast, Law & Disorder, hosted by Charlie Falconer (Labour peer and former Lord Chancellor), Baroness Helena Kennedy, Sir Nicholas Mostyn.  Sadly, Charlie Falconer could not join us on the day of the recording. Together they talk about financial remedy cases as it was, is and could possibly be, as our understanding of complex issues like domestic abuse and coercive control evolve. Our listeners will be especially interested to hear Sir Nicholas Mostyn’s insights as he reflects on this complex issue.

    35 min

  7. 11/24/2025

    Happy 50th Birthday to the Inheritance Act!

    The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 received royal assent on the 12th November 1975. We celebrate its 50th birthday with Emily Roskilly (Roskilly & Co) and Alexander Learmonth KC (New Square Chambers). Everyone needs a broad hinterland behind their specialist practice. Therefore, it is no good being a family practitioner and not knowing your way around the Inheritance Act, because at some point we will be acting for a family where one of the litigants dies. This podcast will tell you all you need to know! Alex tells us who can be in the category of claimants in s1 of the 1975 Act, and the Court’s powers in s2 which are very similar to the Court’s powers on divorce although there are no powers to make orders in respect of pensions. Alex refers us to the Law Commission report ‘Second Report on Family Property: Family Provision on Death" (Law Com No 61)’ which indicates that the Act was intended to make sure spouses were treated the same on death as they would have been on divorce. Emily tells us that the focus of the test for an award in respect of spouse or cohabitee is the statutory test of what is a reasonable financial provision. For a spouse, s1(2)(a) provides that this means such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive, whether or not that provision is required for his or her maintenance. For civil partner claims the same applies. For cohabitees and others such as adult children, s1(2)(aa) and s1(2)(b) provide that reasonable financial provision means such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his or her maintenance. These claims can be brought in the County Court, or in the High Court either in the Family Division or the Business and Property Courts. There remains an anomaly that they cannot be issued in the Family Court, although the Family Division may assign them to an FRC Judge. The effect of having a choice of Court means that you need to think about which Court is likely to lead to a better outcome for your client. Emily draws our attention to the relevant factors that the Court has to consider in s3. Both Alex and Emily agree that conduct is rarely relevant in these claims and it must be gross and obvious. Emily then goes on to tell us about the different provision for spouses or civil partners and cohabitants in these cases. Cohabitees need to have been living with the deceased for two years immediately preceding death and living together as though husband and wife or civil partners. Alex and Emily wrestle with whether prenups would be given weight and conclude that as a matter of principle they would be, with the same caveats that would be applied in the divorce court. We also discussed Cohabitation Agreements, and Emily noted that if it was a long term cohabiting relationship and there was a historic Cohabitation Agreement, although it would show intention or wishes, she could not see it being a closed door for the potential applicant.

    34 min

  8. 10/27/2025

    Trusts and Divorce

    In this episode, Simon takes advantage of Anita’s absence to indulge his favourite topic: trusts and divorce. Simon is joined by three leading experts in the field: Emma Hargreaves  is a barrister at Serle Court chambers, specialising in contentious trust litigation. Abby Buckland is a partner in the family team at Kingsley Napley and was part of the team who were successful in an argument that a trust was a sham in Michael v Michael. Louise Woolrich is a partner at Carey Olsen in Jersey, specialising in trust litigation. We start by going back to basics and exploring what is a trust, and by getting to know the cast of characters who appear in any case involving trusts: the settlor, the trustee, the beneficiary and the protector. We answer the question “what is an offshore trust, and should we always be suspicious of them?”. We then travel through the various stages of a case involving trusts from disclosure to enforcement. We consider trusts as resources and nuptial settlements and discuss whether trustees should be joined to proceedings and, if they are, whether they should submit to the jurisdiction. We discuss how trustees can be involved in without prejudice negotiations and FDRs in order to try and bring about settlement. Finally, we look at how to get orders enforced, in England and offshore. We look at each aspect from the perspective of the beneficiary spouse, the non-beneficiary spouse and the trustee. Practical tips from our speakers at every stage, whoever you are advising. Abby refers to a number of key English law cases on nuptial settlements and sham: Ben Hashem [2008] EWHC 2380Brooks v Brooks [1996]Snook v. London & West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786Thomas v Thomas [1995] 2 FLR 668Michael v Michael (No 1) [2024] EWFC 463Louise refers to key offshore decisions: Disclosure of trust information Article 29 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984Re Rabaiotti 2000 JLR 173Re H Trust 2006 JLR 280Submission to the jurisdiction Re H Trust 2006 JLR 280In the Matter of the Poon Family Trust [2011] JRC 167, [2014] JRC 254A and [2015] JCA 109Enforcement Article 9 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law – the “firewall provision”In the Matter of the X Trust 2002 JLR 377In the Matter of the IMK Family Trust 2008 JLR 250 and 2008 JLR 430In the Matter of the PQ Employer Financed Retirement Benefit Plan [2019] GRC 013Emma refers to the following cases and legislative provisions: Prest v Petrodel Resources LtdPugachevs53 Law of Property Act 1925s423 Insolvency Act 1986

    1h 2m
See All (52)

About

Guests take on a topical debate in family law in each episode in this podcast series from Resolution. Our hosts, Simon Blain and Anita Mehta, invite family law experts to share their experiences and anecdotes, in an insightful and entertaining conversation.

Information

You Might Also Like