An appeal against the return of a child to Romania was allowed where the Romanian court had previously determined that the removal of a child from Romania was not ‘wrongful’.
|
On an application for costs against the FSA under para 13 of Schedule 13 of the 2000 Act and Rule 21 of the FSMT Rules 2001, the Tribunal found that the Committee had acted unreasonably in preferring the evidence of one witness. The role of the Committee is different to that of a prosecutor in a criminal case as the Committee has the power to make binding decisions. Similarly the failure by the Committee to explore the concept of regular user in respect of the new law was unreasonable as was the ...
|
On a referral of a supervisory notice on an “Own-Initiative Variation of Permission” based on concerns that the FSA was not satisfied that Mr Faulkner was a fit and proper person on the basis of a significant number of previous convictions, a bankruptcy order, and a failure to disclose such matters to the FSA or any adequate explanation of this failure to disclose. Mr Faulkner’s success in an appeal against the OFT that he was not a fit and proper person did not determine the application before ...
|
The FSA notified Mr Petkar of its intention to make a direction against him disqualifying him from being employed in connection with investment business of any kind in the United Kingdom and so directed under s. 59 of the Financial Services Act 1986 on 24 August 1999. On the introduction of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the disqualification direction was novated into a prohibition order under s. 56 of the Act. By application Mr Petkar sought to vary or revoke the prohibition order ...
|
The HL held that when calculating "total taxable profits" under the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 Sch.1 para.2A. a self-employed absent parent may not deduct their capital allowances.
|
The HL held that the decision of a judge to make a freeing order on the basis that parental consent was being unreasonably withheld, was not so plainly wrong as to entitle a court to interfere with it even though prospective adopters had not been found at the date the hearing and thus the parents were not aware whether post-adoption contact would be available.
|
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)
|
| 1 2 |