Half a Century in Family Law

episode

Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast not yet transcribed

▲ 0

Transcript

This episode hasn't been transcribed yet Upvotes decide what gets transcribed next — 0 so far. Sign in to upvote

More from Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast

How to run a case in a Child Focused Court 38 min · 27 Jul 2026

Enforcement of financial remedy orders 57 min · 29 Jun 2026

LIVE from National Conference: AI and the Risk of Bias 43 min · 29 May 2026

All episodes from Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast →

Report any issue

Source

Recorded06 May 2025

Publisherfeeds.transistor.fm ↗

Handlerec:1644567

Show notes

This month we are joined by Sir Jonathan Cohen (now an arbitrator and private FDR Judge at 4PB) to discuss the last half century in family law. Sir Jonathan tells us about how family law has changed over that time. He recalls the humiliation caused by all divorces being heard in public, and the seminal changes following the Children Act 1989 and White v White. He also talks about how delayed the system has become, and the difficulty caused by the proliferation of cases without an equal increase in Judges. Sir Jonathan does not accept the Law Commission concern that the law in respect of how a couple divide their finances is uncertain. Like many of us, he believes it is certain if you know the detail of the law, the issue is litigants having access to that certainty and being able to find the information without having to comb through judgments and the internet. Sir Jonathan mentions Courtney Legal https://courtney.legal/team as helping provide this information. We were blown away to hear Sir Jonathan say that in his personal view the justice system has under recognised the impact of domestic abuse in financial remedy cases. Sir Jonathan refers to the report by KPMG of the impact of domestic abuse on earnings from 2019; ‘The workplace impact of domestic violence and abuse’:https://newscentre.vodafone.co.uk/app/uploads/2019/11/KPMG-Domestic-Violence-and-Abuse-Report-Nov19-1-1-1.pdf Sir Jonathan tells us that in his view that there is unfinished business when it comes to transparency in financial remedy cases. He tells us that reporters are welcomed into Courts now, but there is division as to whether it is right to have parties’ names and the details of all their finances published. Sir Jonathan says that he is not in favour of publishing the names of parties in financial remedy cases, unless their names and finances are already in the public domain or there is some other good reason. Sir Jonathan encourages all practitioners who are thinking about judicial appointment to apply for a part-time role to dip their toe in the water. He opines that if you are starting to mourn the bad results, more than you celebrate the good results, that is when you should be thinking about judicial appointment, and when you get to the stage of wanting to find the ‘right’ result rather than a ‘win’, that is when you should be thinking about full-time appointment. He tells us he has thoroughly enjoyed being a full-time Judge. It’s a strong finish with Sir Jonathan saying Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 is no longer fit for purpose, and music to Resolution members’ ears that the provision we make for unmarried parents is completely out-dated.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.