Guests take on a topical debate in family law in each episode in this podcast series from Resolution. Our hosts, Simon Blain and Anita Mehta, invite family law experts to share their experiences and anecdotes, in an insightful and entertaining conversation.
Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast
Claim This Podcastby Resolution
53 episodes
Updated Bi-weekly
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇬🇧
67
Podcast Authority
BetaGoodBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Quality70
Social0
YouTube76
Engagement85
Podcast Overview
Guests take on a topical debate in family law in each episode in this podcast series from Resolution. Our hosts, Simon Blain and Anita Mehta, invite family law experts to share their experiences and anecdotes, in an insightful and entertaining conversation.
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
4/7/2021
Unlock The Full Podcast Authority Score Report
See how your podcast performs across key metrics
67
Podcast Authority
BetaGoodBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Quality70
Social0
YouTube76
Engagement85
9
Excellent Areas
1
Good Performance
9
Growth Opportunities
excellent
Episode Length
44 minutes
Performing excellently!
good
iTunes Tags
7.6/10
Recommendations available
Unlock the full report to see detailed tips
poor
Publishing Consistency
Every 37 days
Recommendations available
Unlock the full report to see detailed tips
+16 More Metrics
Unlock comprehensive insights including:
- • YouTube presence analysis
- • Social media reach metrics
- • RSS compliance scoring
- • Podcast 2.0 features
- • Technical standards
What's Included in Your Full Report
Detailed Analytics
- Complete breakdown of all 19 authority metrics
- Personalized recommendations for each metric
- Industry benchmarks and comparisons
- Technical RSS feed analysis and compliance scoring
Growth Strategies
- Step-by-step action plans for improvement
- Quick wins to boost your score immediately
- Pro tips from successful podcasters
Get your free podcast insights report
See how your show performs across every key metric
Instant delivery
No spam
Attract Better Guests
High authority scores make your podcast more attractive to industry leaders and influencers who want to appear on credible shows.
Secure Sponsorships
Sponsors look for podcasts with proven authority and engagement. Your score demonstrates your podcast's value to potential partners.
Grow Your Audience
Understanding your strengths and weaknesses helps you make data-driven decisions to expand your listener base effectively.
2 verified contact emails on file for Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
June 29, 2026
Enforcement of financial remedy orders
<p>This is the start of a series into enforcing orders; this part focuses on enforcing financial remedy orders.</p><p> </p><p>We are joined by Christopher Stirling (Field Court Chambers) and Kara Swift (Family Law in Partnership) who breathe life into this topic.</p><p> </p><p>Chris starts with telling us that recitals that deal with the payment of money are enforceable: Austin v Haynes [2021] EWCA Civ 1919 per Moylan LJ. However, be careful about how you are drafting the recital to make sure that they are not conditional or incapable of definition. </p><p> </p><p>In respect of property adjustment orders, Chris reminds us that they take effect immediately in equity once DA/Final Order is made: Mountenay v Treharne [2003] Ch 135. He also reminds us of the ability of the Court at the time of the final hearing to provide for deadlines for executing documents in default of which an application can be made ex parte to direct that a conveyancing solicitor or Judge should sign in the place of the defaulting party. </p><p> </p><p>Kara then reminds us that orders for sale pursuant to S.24A of the MCA allows for orders for sale to be made at any time on or after the making of a financial remedy order making it useful standalone relief. She reminds us that a lump sum is a simple debt. It doesn’t take priority over any other debt, unless it is supported by a default order for sale. </p><p> </p><p>Kara and Chris move on to discuss charging orders. Note, there are no formal time limits for making charging order – see Lowsley v Forbes [1999] 1 AC 329 – though any interest claimed on sums charged is limited to 6 years – s.24(1) LA 1980 – nor is there need to seek any permission after 6 years like some other forms of execution: see Frankl-Rietti v Cheltenham & Gloucester plc [2011] EWCA Civ 524 per Rimer LJ @ [21] – and once obtained have an indefinite “shelf life” – CA refused to set aside charging order made 16 years previously in Yorkshire Bank Finance v Mulhall [2008] EWCA Civ 1156</p><p> </p><p>They are made via a 2 stage process – interim and final order – interim order usually an ex parte process – though can be made immediately at time of judgment/order – see Mostyn J in Green v Adams [2017] 2 FLR 1413 (though if lump sum may be more practical to make default order for sale). </p><p>Can get charging order where judgment debtor has some interest in charged asset and it is not necessary to establish the extent of that interest at stage of charging order - Walton v Alman [2017] 1 FLR 927 . </p><p> </p><p>Kara tells us that 3rd party debt order – interim and final - is a mechanism to secure funds ahead of enforcing the direct payment of them to the applicant by the third party holding the funds. Note, A v Z (No 2) (Interim Third Party Debt Order), where an interim order was made against a party’s solicitors’ client account. </p><p> </p><p>Enforcing costs orders is like any other lump sum, but it must be liquidated to be enforceable i.e. you need to have agreed the amount or had it assessed after on detailed or summary basis. You do not have to wait for the final order of the divorce. </p><p> </p><p>Periodical payments order can be enforced by an attachment of earnings order. They can be made as part of the original final order, if someone has been defaulting or diverting income. Generally, there is no provision for interest - TW v TM (Minors).</p><p> </p><p>They then talk us through:</p><ul><li>Warrants of control – the bailiffs/ Enforcement Officers</li><li>Judgment summons see Barclay v Barclay [2022] EWHC 2026 (Fam) in respect of the burden of proof;</li><li>Receivers – as a last resort if there are no other methods and proportionate. </li><li>Blight v Brewster Orders – compelling a party to draw from a private pension;</li><li>Thwaite jurisdiction – the power to vary executory orders where unjust not to do so </li></ul>
May 29, 2026
LIVE from National Conference: AI and the Risk of Bias
<p>Resolution’s National Conference in 2026 kicked off with our keynote session looking at the impact of AI in the justice system, including the benefits of being able to deliver justice more efficiency and the risk of it perpetuating bias that exists in the system. We wanted to find a topic that would give our audience lots to were privileged to be joined by The Honourable Mr Justice McKendrick and Professor Rosemary Hunter King Counsel (Lead author of the Harm Panel 2020 report and co-author of the Everyday Business report 2025). </p><p> </p><p>Judge tells us that the Chancellor of the High Court, the Rt Hon Lord Justice Birss is the lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, with an allocated senior for criminal, civil and family justice. Mr Justice McKendrick is the lead judge for AI in family justice. </p><p> </p><p>The Judge makes the point that AI is transforming society, and justice needs to keep up with that development. The judiciary already has access to its own confidential AI system, and guidance was issued to the judiciary in October 2025: <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.judiciary.uk_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2025_10_Artificial-2DIntelligence-2DAI-2DGuidance-2Dfor-2DJudicial-2DOffice-2DHolders-2D2.pdf&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K5CGDks8hpJWIAp1MIY_WoD4Hzzaz9mUnvKp-IiNhVVGVaXq98INfLa1oF8Vg-Sb&m=3JVYaAtKsX-u1tjm0aGClHE6bfqrzFnde4v4t0FdOcWEQ2r_p9HhPtqyXOJKBZbe&s=Tkp0F-NUAeW1F4EqC4SSl9MWk3WGL7hzOOcHxESOtsU&e=">https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdf</a></p><p><br>That system can summarise bundles, summarising judgments for litigants with special educational needs, AI to translate or transcript audio, as AI hallucination checker. However, judicial decisions always remain the responsibility of the Judge. In the same way that the High Court judiciary already have access to a judicial assistant, but decisions are made by the Judge. </p><p> </p><p>Rosemary explains that there are deliberate biases in the system which we all think is a good thing, for example the child’s welfare being the paramount consideration is a form of bias. The concern therefore only arises in respect of biases that give a party an unjustified disadvantage. Rosemary gives example of the research in the Harm report about the ‘pro-contact culture’, which is a form of bias. Rosemary makes the point that over-reliance on AI could lead to jurisprudential ossification i.e. continuing to use the determination that is already available rather than responding to adapting views. </p><p> </p><p>The Judge referred to a speech by The President of the King’s Bench division <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.judiciary.uk_speech-2Dby-2Dthe-2Dpresident-2Dof-2Dthe-2Dkings-2Dbench-2Ddivision-2Dthe-2Dmayflower-2Dlecture-2D2025_&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K5CGDks8hpJWIAp1MIY_WoD4Hzzaz9mUnvKp-IiNhVVGVaXq98INfLa1oF8Vg-Sb&m=3JVYaAtKsX-u1tjm0aGClHE6bfqrzFnde4v4t0FdOcWEQ2r_p9HhPtqyXOJKBZbe&s=Wi8qNKpXzJMscortqZMpN_shVYE5XDpeVnbDsvqrDN4&e=">https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-president-of-the-kings-bench-division-the-mayflower-lecture-2025/</a></p><p>The difference between prediction and reasoning. That lecture goes on to look at the fact that AI is predicting based on past outcomes, whereas Judges are reasoning. Therefore, the Judge argues there is always a difference between the judicial outcome of reasoning to the outcome and AI predicting the likely outcome based on previous data. </p><p> </p><p>We went on to consider a number of judicial lectures including: </p><ul><li>the Master of the Rolls speech on Artificial Intelligence where the Master of the Rolls opined that incivil justice routine judicial decision-making could be informed or directed by machines <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.judiciary.uk_speech-2Dby-2Dthe-2Dmaster-2Dof-2Dthe-2Drolls-2Dartificial-2Dintelligence-2Dand-2Dthe-2Djudiciary_&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K5CGDks8hpJWIAp1MIY_WoD4Hzzaz9mUnvKp-IiNhVVGVaXq98INfLa1oF8Vg-Sb&m=3JVYaAtKsX-u1tjm0aGClHE6bfqrzFnde4v4t0FdOcWEQ2r_p9HhPtqyXOJKBZbe&s=nM3WM9h3QqqQJQYw10zbDJ9H0iDNaUFaN62fozQvgZ8&e=">https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-master-of-the-rolls-artificial-intelligence-and-the-judiciary/</a></li><li>Lord Briggs, Justice of the Supreme Court <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__supremecourt.uk_uploads_speech-5Flord-5Fbriggs-5F20052026-5Fde46afe657.pdf&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K5CGDks8hpJWIAp1MIY_WoD4Hzzaz9mUnvKp-IiNhVVGVaXq98INfLa1oF8Vg-Sb&m=3JVYaAtKsX-u1tjm0aGClHE6bfqrzFnde4v4t0FdOcWEQ2r_p9HhPtqyXOJKBZbe&s=M9Oea6EaxYajlGig1NMkSpLKSzbjusqEfKzGIwZ57VQ&e=">https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_lord_briggs_20052026_de46afe657.pdf</a></li></ul><p>Finally, we concluded with a discussion about the debate in the House of Lords about the future of financial remedy law. </p><p><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hansard.parliament.uk_Lords_2025-2D11-2D10_debates_1492EA41-2DF82F-2D4148-2DA8AB-2DC0F8CB5B78B7_FinancialProvisionOnDivorce&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K5CGDks8hpJWIAp1MIY_WoD4Hzzaz9mUnvKp-IiNhVVGVaXq98INfLa1oF8Vg-Sb&m=3JVYaAtKsX-u1tjm0aGClHE6bfqrzFnde4v4t0FdOcWEQ2r_p9HhPtqyXOJKBZbe&s=AsSfXsxeJywyBiL01E_MUqhl5khsMEG8C7wWLpjtnEU&e=">https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-11-10/debates/1492EA41-F82F-4148-A8AB-C0F8CB5B78B7/FinancialProvisionOnDivorce</a></p><p> </p><p>We conclude with wondering whether AI is going to fuel litigation and driving litigants to issue, or whether it will help litigants to find consensual solutions and remove unrealistic expectations, as yet it is impossible to know. </p>
April 27, 2026
Family Law Act applications and the President’s Guidance
<p>Are you up to date with how to apply for non-molestation orders? Jenny Beck KC (Beck Fitzgerald), and Charlotte Baker (4PB) join us to bring us up-to-date, and discuss Family Law Act Remedies. </p><p> </p><p>Jenny was the Chair of the Family Justice Council that wrote the report providing Best Practice Guidance*. She starts by telling us why the guidance was necessary: </p><p><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.judiciary.uk_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2025_12_FJC-2DBest-2DPractice-2DGuidance-2Dfor-2DPractitioners-2DMaking-2Dan-2DApplication-2Dfor-2Da-2DProtective-2DInjunction-2Dunder-2Dthe-2DFLA-2D1996-2Dwith-2DAnnex-2D1.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K5CGDks8hpJWIAp1MIY_WoD4Hzzaz9mUnvKp-IiNhVVGVaXq98INfLa1oF8Vg-Sb&m=Svl2TZ3WuiRf79CShfzLA_WblMvQy9KZAmXVP2qaG-8c1cl53JjRDbI5o7US024S&s=ww_qrVgWLu4Afgu25tkQ_up0UES5-GpMCTt8kHs-QTM&e=">https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FJC-Best-Practice-Guidance-for-Practitioners-Making-an-Application-for-a-Protective-Injunction-under-the-FLA-1996-with-Annex-1.pdf</a></p><p> </p><p>Charlotte then explains how the President’s guidance should change our practice: </p><p><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__url.uk.m.mimecastprotect.com_s_uTLmCgpDNsAYOVLH3srT4cjME_&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K5CGDks8hpJWIAp1MIY_WoD4Hzzaz9mUnvKp-IiNhVVGVaXq98INfLa1oF8Vg-Sb&m=Svl2TZ3WuiRf79CShfzLA_WblMvQy9KZAmXVP2qaG-8c1cl53JjRDbI5o7US024S&s=m3-Grozsw-n-hsf66tAb_p8P01-qjMRZo7fvo2_ZrG4&e=">https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/the-pfds-guidance-2026-non-molestation-orders-under-the-family-law-act-1996-and-the-fjcs-best-practice-guidance-for-practitioners-on-making-an-application-for-a-protective-injuncti/</a></p><p> </p><p>Charlotte and Jenny talk about the new draft orders. The orders no longer have the standard terms ‘not to use or threaten violence’ and ‘not to harass, intimidate and pester’. Jenny tells us they were removed because using and threatening violence is a criminal offence and not what these orders should be about, and it is hard to prove harassing, intimidating and pestering someone. However, she makes clear that these terms can be added back into the draft order if required. Jenny tells us that the respondent’s details should be included on the face of the order to make the order effective. </p><p> </p><p>Jenny tells us about the procedural change in the President’s guidance. Namely, that the initial application should be heard on the papers, if that is not accepted it should be listed within a day for the applicant to make representations. Charlotte tells us that when making an application for a non-molestation order that you need to be able to explain what is happening right now that justifies protection and why it is that an order is required. </p><p> </p><p>We discuss high acrimony cases and what to do when an application for a non-molestation order is made, and the respondent attends Court accusing the applicant of being just as bad. Both Charlotte and Jenny raise concerned about the times when Judges have tried to resolve matters by cross-undertakings. </p><p> </p><p>We finally discuss whether practitioners should be advising their client to go to the Police for a DAPO, why it is that clients may prefer not to the police and why it is this form of remedy needs to exist for victim-survivors who prefer not to make a complaint to the police. </p><p><br></p><p>*Although Jenny joined us in her personal capacity today. </p>
53 total episodes available
Recent guests on Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast
Guests from recent episodes — sign up to see every guest that has ever appeared on this show.
Ruth Dodsworth
Guest
Jane Monckton-Smith
Guest
Professor Nicholas Hopkins
Guest
Emma Hitchings
Guest
Jo Edwards
Guest
Sir Jonathan Cohen
Guest
Joseph O’Brien
Guest
Laura Flanagan
Guest
Matthew Richardson
Guest
Trevor Sterling
Guest
Jenny Beck KC
Guest
Dr Jamie Craig
Guest
Similar Podcasts
Discover related shows you might enjoy
The Family Law Podcast
Pump Court Chambers
The News Agents
Global
The Rest Is Politics
Goalhanger
Stories of our times
The Times
Full Disclosure with James O'Brien
Global
The Rest Is Entertainment
Goalhanger
Desert Island Discs
BBC Radio 4
Dig It
Persephonica
Leading
Goalhanger
The Romesh Ranganathan Show
Ranga Bee & Platform Media
Ready to Talk with Emma Barnett
BBC Sounds
Begin Again with Davina McCall
Begin Again
Great Company
Jampot Productions
Oh God, What Now?
Podmasters
How To Fail With Elizabeth Day
Elizabeth Day and Sony Music Entertainment
Deep-dive analytics for Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates bi-weekly.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 10 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
Yes, this podcast regularly features guests.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.