Adopting a purposive construction of the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (The Hague Convention) 1980. The court held that a Greek father had failed to show that an English mother’s removal of A, to the UK, had been wrongful in Greek law. She had been granted provisional and exclusive care of the child by the Greek court and was entitled to select a place of residence for the child outside the jurisdiction of the Greek court.
|
A father’s appeal against the finding he had caused injury to his son was dismissed. The CA held that while on the facts the judge had dealt inadequately with the medical evidence there was compelling evidence to support his conclusions.
|
An appeal against Care Orders was allowed where the LA had removed children on the basis of third party allegations of physical abuse, which were not borne out, and subsequently sought to run the case on the basis of the parents’ low intelligence.
|
In order to demonstrate the open nature of the family justice system Lord Justice Wall took the unusual step of reserving judgment and giving full written judgment in two cases where he refused leave to appeal to two appellant fathers acting in person in Children Act cases. After full explanation of his reasons for refusing leave in the individual cases he reiterated his earlier comments in Re O [2004] 1 FLR 1258 as to the importance the court attaches the contact and the need for parents to tak ...
|
While they had not followed the recommendations of 2:1 care set out in an expert report Lincolnshire CC had not been perverse or irrational, or otherwise unlawful, in setting a care plan for a 17-year-old suffering from a degenerative disease.
|
A court making an order under the Children Act 1989 s. 91(14) is not permitted to attach conditions to the order beyond stating its duration and identifying the type of relief to which it applied. Such orders may be made without limit of time or until a relevant child attained the age of 16 but this should be the exception rather than the rule and full reasons set out clearly.
|
Proof - Residence Order
The mother (defender) and father (pursuer) remain married to each other but divorce proceedings are pending following their split in July 2004. The only issue here was whether the father should have a residence order to both his children and, if not, what should be the proper arrangement for contact. The evidence at proof disclosed an atmosphere of distrust and hostility between the parties. The court here looked at the personal and living circumstances of the pursuer, in Wallyford, and the defe ...
|
To the extent that by reason of not according Civil Partnerships the name ‘marriage’ The Civil Partnership Act 2004 discriminated against same-sex partners, that discrimination had a legitimate aim, was reasonable and proportionate and fell within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention states.
|
Held that this was a case where, wholly exceptionally, the wealth created was of extraordinary proportions from H’s extraordinary talent and energy. Therefore in taking s.25 MCA 1973 into account W was entitled to £48m representing just under 37% of the parties’ total assets.
|
The court found on the evidence that a wife in ancillary relief proceedings had not proved her case that sums of money used to purchase five properties were a gift rather than, as contended by the husband, expended under a power of attorney for the benefit of his parents.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |