This title is available as part of LexisLibraryFind out more or request a trial
ASHLEY MURRAY, Barrister, Oriel Chambers, Liverpool
There are certain challenges each of us should attempt in our lifetime and for most these involve a parachute jump, a mountain climb, etc. Akin to these in the legal world would be reading from first page to last a judgment of Charles J. One of his most recent is J v J  EWHC 2654 (Fam), which covers 114 pages, more than 50 of which consist of the most detailed review of the current issues in ancillary relief law to be found outside any legal textbook. Little wonder then that in one of his latest reported judgments in N v N (Ancillary Relief)  EWHC 717 (Fam),  2 FLR (forthcoming), he comments (at para [17[) that ‘Neither side argued that my analysis and approach in . . . [J v J] . . . was wrong'. To be fair, of course, counsel in N v N had, clearly, from the nature of their submissions, digested the judge's earlier discourse. However, for the busy practitioner elsewhere there have to be different priorities and it is crucial, therefore, that he can access some abbreviated analysis of what this experienced ancillary relief judge has said. The facts of J v J are not essential reading in this context and this is not intended to be such an analysis. However, Charles J had in J v J much to say upon a whole host of subjects including the approach to ancillary relief distribution and the future potential of developing certain aspects thereof further. What follows is an attempt to summarise his erudite analysis.
Family Law is the leading practitioner journal, ensuring all family law professionals keep up with the latest developments and their impact on practice. Each issue contains the latest news of legislative change, authoritative case reports, invaluable articles and news items written and compiled by experts for the practising family law professional.
The Red Book is the acknowledged authority on practice and procedure