Form E
Form E is a disclosure of financial positions. Before attending court, both parties should know about each other’s finances and the matters about which they agree and disagree. Therefore, each party must complete a financial statement called Form E.
The purpose of Form E is to enable each party to provide the court with full details of their financial arrangements, so it has to include everything from savings and property ownership to pension and income. It must be completed and sent to the court no later than 35 days before the date of the first court appointment. A copy must also be sent to the other party. (The date of the First Appointment can be found on a Form C, which will be sent to both parties by the court.)
If you and your former partner have already come to an agreement about financial matters, there is no need for either of you to complete a Form E. However your agreement (sometimes known as a Consent Application) must be submitted to the court in advance of the First Appointment.
Back to Glossary
Posts related to Form E
- Judges must avoid close relationships with solicitors (From Solicitors Journal)
- From my latest Solicitors Journal column “Family Business”, 17/04/2012.
It is vital that we maintain the public’s faith in the independence of the justice system, says Marilyn Stowe.
Will …
- Spring renewal – for body and mind
- It’s been a beautiful May week here in Harrogate. The spring flowers are blooming, the sky is blue, the sun has even begun to shine and the air is starting to feel warm again. People are also …
- Lilleyman v Lilleyman: a question of costs. By Laura Guillon.
- Lilleyman v Lilleyman was an interesting case, explored in depth in the last post, in which a widow argued that her reasonable needs had not been met in her late husband’s will. Almost the entirety …
- Lilleyman v Lilleyman: spouses and the Inheritance Act. By Laura Guillon.
- This blog receives many queries from people who are left stranded after the death of a family member, particularly a partner or spouse. People generally try to brush off thinking about what would …
- The Queen’s Speech: a family lawyer’s response
- In these cash strapped times and having suffered huge recent defeats at the polls, the government seems to be keeping its head down, which is a pity. Recession is a time of opportunity, and I believe …
- CKFT v Minkin: counting the costs and the lessons learned. By guest blogger Eleanor Webster
- When you instruct a solicitor in your matrimonial case you receive a costs estimate which gives an estimate of likely costs. If the figure mentioned is acceptable and you agree, a retainer letter is …
- Geary v Rankine: how a cohabiting couple’s assets are divided. By guest blogger Lindsey Randall.
- The recent case of Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555 involved a relationship that lasted from 1990 to 2009. The relationship with Mr Rankine began while Mrs Geary was still married. She did not …
- The keystone: an archway to a loving relationship
- Writing in The Law Gazette this week, Joshua Rozenberg considers Sir Paul Coleridge’s Marriage Foundation. Overall, he comes down strongly in favour of it, stating that he too has been married for …
- The Marriage Foundation: playing devil’s advocate
- The Marriage Foundation was launched by Sir Paul Coleridge earlier this week, and this experienced High Court judge is the organisation’s obvious champion. Sir Paul, who spent 30 years as a …
- I’ve been to Yeotown
- Sharp-eyed readers may have noticed a slight lull in new posts and responses to queries over the past few days. That’s because I’ve been in an internet-free seclusion zone…
As my …
View more related posts
Comments