In the long awaited judgment the HL upheld Singer J award of 5m to the W in Miller (although they did not agree with his treatment of conduct and legitimate expectations) and dismissed the five–year term on the W in Macfarlane’s £250,000 periodical payments. Full text of the judgment is available on the HL website.
|
The CSA procedure prior to the coming into force of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for assessing non-resident parents in same-sex couples did not amount to adverse discrimination under human rights legislation. The aim of the complicated formulae was to strike a fair balance.
|
The HL held that a judge was entitled to decide that it was beyond his jurisdiction to order a further period therapeutic treatment for a mother in care proceedings. A s.38(6) order could only be properly made if it was for a medical or psychiatric assessment of the child. It was not appropriate to use s.38(6) where in reality the focus of the work to be done is therapy or treatment aimed at bringing about a long term change in a parent’s capacity to parent.
|
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)
|
HL decided that a person illegally present in England and Wales under the Immigration Act 1971 could still be habitually resident within the jurisdiction for the purposes of s 5 (2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 and have a domicile of choice there, and consequently the English Courts could entertain her divorce petition.
|
In considering whether a child ought summarily to be returned to his home country, being a non contracting Hague Convention country, for a decision to be made as to his future residence, the fact that the family law procedures of that country differ from those of the UK is relevant, but the extent of its relevance depends on the facts of the particular case. The welfare of the individual child is paramount and the specialist rules and concepts of the Convention do not apply by analogy.
|
Where an unmarried couple begun fertility treatment by donor sperm together, but a child was conceived after their separation, the couple were not receiving treatment "together" at the time of insemination and the man could not be treated as the father under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 s.28(3).
|
| 1 |