A reminder that we have our next speaker tonight: Dr. Matthew Sullivan, a psychologist from California, specialising in forensic child and family psychology will talk on “Co-parenting Interventions in High Conflict Child Custody Cases”. Hong Kong Club, 1 Jackson Road, Central, registration at 6pm.
Stuart Fowler AM, recently retired judge of the Family Court of Australia, will be visiting Hong Kong in August 2014 and we are delighted he has accepted our request for him to speak on 19th August 2014, at the Hong Kong Club. He will look at the sometimes vexed question of law reform. To register, please download the flyer which can be found on the “upcoming events” page.
The FLA are excited to announce the next talk at the Hong Kong Club will be on 17 July 2014 with Dr. Nia Pryde who will speak on “The Resolution of Marital Difficulties through Divorce: A Psychologist’s View”. To register please go to the Upcoming Events page of this website.
The talk by Ian Mann, head of litigation at Harneys, has now been rescheduled for Wednesday 16 April 2014 at 6:30pm at the Hong Kong Club. Register now to avoid disappointment!
We regret to advise that tonight’s planned talk by Ian Mann is postponed. We will advise of the new date and venue in due course.
HKFLA is pleased to announce the next talk at the HK Club will be held on 31 March 2014 with Ian Mann of Harneys speaking on remedies available in BVI and Cayman Islands in connection with HK Divorce proceedings. Go to our “upcoming events” page, to register.
In the UK, the Family Division of the High Court (Mostyn J) has dismissed a challenge by a wife to an agreement entered into prior to marriage which, among other things, defined her entitlement to maintenance in the event of a separation. The marital difficulties had begun within a fairly short time of the marriage (the agreement was only 15 months old at the time of the wife’s application). In holding the parties to the agreement, the Judge referred to Radmacher v Granatino and said that: “given the important notice in its prominent font at the beginning of the document stating that it is intended to confirm separate property interests and to be determinative of the division of their assets, it must be obvious that the principal object of the exercise in this case (as indeed in every case where a nuptial agreement is signed) is to avoid subsequent expensive and stressful litigation; and it is for this reason, as will be seen, that the law adopts a strict policy of requiring the demonstration of something unfair before it will open the Pandora’s Box of litigation where there has been an agreement of this nature.”
The hearing of the substantive application for ancillary relief will follow later, but the judgment is significant, especially as the UK Law Commission is on the verge of delivering its report on the law relating to agreements including those in anticipation of divorce.
The bailii report of the judgment is here: