An order for capital provision of £175,000 under Schedule 1 was held not to be plainly wrong or outside the boundaries of reasonable disagreement where the DJ had found the father’s evidence to be unsatisfactory and concluded he and his wife had assets of over £1 million. The order for periodical payments of £500pcm was held to be plainly wrong.
|
CA upheld Singer J’s judgment on 5 April 2005 - see [2005] EWHC 528 (Fam) in which he made an award of £4.5 million in a short childless marriage where the parties were still young and the husband’s wealth was over £30 million pounds.
|
In refusing the appeal of a father who enjoyed contact with his child for a few hours a week before the mother moved to England CA held that the liberal New Zealand interpretation of ‘rights of custody’ was wrong and that there was no foundation to support the father’s contention that a positive determination (Art 15) by New Zealand was determinative.
|
Where a finding had been made that a father was within a pool of potential perpetrators of abuse against the child in question, and it was subsequently discovered that the teacher upon whose evidence the Judge had largely relied in making that finding had been in a collusive relationship with the child’s mother, it was necessary to retry the issue. Neither the mother nor the teacher had not been full and frank in their sworn testimony, and had omitted to mention important disclosures the child h ...
|
The wording of s1 of The Children Act 1989 did not create any presumption one way or another as to whether an order should be made or not. The court was required in each case to consider whether or not it was better for the child for there to be an order, as opposed to no order at all. In this case the simple fact that an agreement had been reached between the parties after issue did not mean that no order was necessary; it was not a case where there had been no disagreement at all and where the ...
|
In general there is an obligation on a LA to share relevant information relating to a child in their care with its parents. Such information was held in the instant case not to include the fact that a foster father was HIV positive since the risk of infection was negligible, it was not information which would affect the court’s decision. Where the risk was not negligible the duty to disclose might overcome the foster father’s right and the duty owed to him.
|
A local authority is entitled to an injunction restraining the publication of the identity of a D and her victim in a criminal trial, and of the fact that they are HIV+, in order to protect the privacy of their children who had not been involved in the trial but who are the subject of care proceedings.
|
That an unmarried father did not qualify for tax deductions for maintenance payments made was held to be a violation of art 14 of the Convention in conjunction with art 1 of the First Protocol. Compensation of 292 euros was awarded to the applicant.
|
A former wife with care of the children has no right under the Child Support Act 1991 to enforce her former husband’s liability to pay maintenance, but these provisions are still consistent with the right of access to a court (Art.6 ECHR)
|
There is no basis on which an appeal could succeed against an order adjourning an appeal for a limited period to enable the appellant to be heard but refusing an adjournment for a substantial period due to medical grounds.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |