The application of a Father pursuant to the Hague Convention for the return of his 11 month old daughter to Poland was granted. The court considered the authorities on habitual residence and held that the child and mother had not become habitually resident in England and Wales.
|
The CA allowed an appeal against interim care orders removing children from the care of their Mother on the basis that the Judge had failed to rely on authorities as to interim orders and had treated the orders as final orders. However in the circumstances of the case where the children were at risk from the Father and there was concern about the Mother's ability to separate from him the CA after allowing the appeal put in place interim care orders under which the children would live with relati ...
|
The CA allowed the appeal of Coventry CC against an injunction imposed to prevent their removal of children from foster parents and placement with prospective adopters. It was held that the court had not properly considered the LA statutory rights by virtue of ss 21 and 38 ACA 2002 when making the injunction. On a subsidiary point the CA held that 'placement for adoption' took place at the time children went to live with adopters. The CA expressed their sympathy to the prospective adopters who h ...
|
The CA considered the nature and consequential effect of mirror orders in a case where a father who had a Malaysian order granting him custody of a child had sought mirror orders in the UK prior to bringing the child over for contact with his Mother. The CA allowed the Father's appeal against contact orders made in the High Court holding that no jurisdiction under Article 12.3 of Council Regulation (EC) N0 2201/2003 existed in this case.
|
In 1996, the Appellant (R) was convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. He was released on compassionate grounds in 1998. Following his release he was entitled to apply annually for his release to continue. If he applied successfully in three consecutive years, the release would become absolute. He failed to make the third application and moved to the UK.The District Judge did not accept that extradition would breach R’s Article 8 rights.HELD: Appeal dismissed. This ...
|
HELD: Appeal dismissed. A letter, received by the Respondent from the Appellant declaring his intention to appeal the District Judge’s decision to order his extradition, did not amount to notice of appeal.
|
In 1997, the Respondent (M) was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. M served 2 years of her sentence before being released and leaving Italy for the UK.The District Judge refused to order her extradition on the basis that it would be oppressive due to the passage of time.The Italian Judicial Authority appealed the District Judge’s decision to discharge the Respondent.HELD: Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to find that the passage of 12 years rend ...
|
It was the normal rule, and desirable practice, that all outstanding issues between the parties should, where possible, be resolved at a single hearing and the principle of the public interest in the finality of litigation remained crucial. Further, a judge should not be tempted to invent rules to make up for perceived deficiencies in statutory provision. Although the court had the power to postpone some issues for later resolution, that was to be regarded as a rare or exceptional course requiri ...
|
The court had to determine whether an adjudication agreement is capable of being repudiated and the legal position of a party who does not want to go ahead with the nominated adjudicator having instituted a reference to adjudication. The court had to decide whether, if the party abandons that reference, it can go ahead with another reference for the same dispute. The court held that under section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, a party could not lose its right ...
|
This was an application for summary judgment to enforce two decisions of an adjudicator in two separate actions brought against the respondent hotel owners. The court had to decide whether the adjudicator had failed to make a ruling on the defendant’s counterclaims and whether this amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice. The court held that the question for the adjudicator was whether the counterclaims could be deployed as a defence to the claimant’s claims in the adjudication in t ...
|
| 1 |