Resolution Podcast S3 Episode #1 | Busking with Mr Justice Mostyn

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

Recorded21 Jul 2023

Publisherfeeds.transistor.fm ↗

Handlerec:1644586

Show notes

We could not have been more excited to have the opportunity to speak to Mr Justice Mostyn before he retires at the end of the month. We discuss Movers & Shakers – his highly successful podcast with five other Parkinson’s sufferers: https://cureparkinsons.org.uk/2023/03/movers-shakers-six-familiar-faces-launch-podcast-about-living-with-parkinsons/ Plus his best case, and thoughts on transparency of course! The Judge clarifies that Hildebrand documents are admissible if relevant, but the case of Immerman deals with professional conduct around such documents. The Judge explains and justified the rates used for Duxbury, and invites Resolution to attend future meetings about the rates. Finally, for all Resolution members you will be pleased to hear that the Judge completely supports the proposition that there should be no difference between the Court’s powers if the parties are married or not. This episode gets better and better as the Judge goes on. During the discussion the Judge mentions: RF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] EWHC 3375 (Admin) – this is the case Mostyn J discussed being most proud of. Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30 refers to the case of J v J [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam) Evans v Evans [1990] 1 WLR 575, [1990] FLR 319 James v Seymour [2023] EWHC 844 (Fam) (child support)

Ask this episode

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