Mr Justice Munby in a public judgment gives the profession a warning about the consequences of 'sloppy practice' in not ascertaining and engaging with parallel immigration proceedings when in family proceedings. Practitioner's were reminded of the President's Protocol: Communicating with the Home Office of 28 February 2006 (and now following this judgment available on the HMCS website) and of the case of Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-Upon-Thames London Borough Council [2008] 1 FLR 1061.
|
Proof:- In this action the pursuer sought an order in terms of section 28(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 for payment of £50,000 and an order in terms of section 28(2)(b) of that Act for payment by the defender of £20,000. The parties cohabited as husband and wife from January 1998 and that there are two children from the relationship. The parties separated on 24 May 2006 and the children live with the pursuer and have regular contact with the defender. It was submitted on ...
|
The CA dismissed a father's appeal against the refusal of a judge to grant him permission to disclose statements within Children Act proceedings to a consultant psychiatrist and the general practitioner of a child now almost 18. The CA considered whether the father needed the court's permission given the disclosure allowed under 10.20A of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 and concluded that in the circumstances of the case permission would be required.
|
This was an appeal under section 21 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 against a decision of an Additional Support Needs Tribunal dated 16 January 2008 confirming a decision of the respondents dated 8 October 2007 that WA did not require a Co-ordinated Support Plan. On 8 October, the respondents wrote to the appellant and stated:- "The Educational Authority considered whether a Co-ordinated Support Plan was required.It was agreed at this meeting that WA did ha ...
|
Mr Justice Munby gives public warning in this judgment to both solicitors and barristers that a failure to comply with the Practice Direction: Court Bundles (Universal Practice to be Applied in All Courts other than the Family Proceedings Court)[2006] 2 FLR 1999 may result in a public 'naming and shaming'.
|
Judgement given in respect of care proceedings relating to a child whose older sibling had suffered non-accidental injuries in the care of the parents. It was held that the court did not have sufficient understanding of why the Mother acted as she did in injuring the older sibling to be satisfied that the child would be safe in her mother's care.
|
Munby J gives a summary of the case law in relation to McKenzie friends exercising a right of audience before holding that it is not correct that an order allowing this can only be made in exceptional circumstances. Clarkson v Gilbert [2000] 2 FLR 839 followed.
|
The court ordered the return of two children to Poland (for a second time) after finding that the Father had not established a case under Article 12 and 13. The issue of the children's settlement was considered at length in the context of the Father's deceit of the Mother and the Polish Courts.
|
The Appellant brought an appeal under Section 51(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) against a decision of the Children’s Hearing making a supervision requirement in respect of the Appellant’s son, in terms of which the Appellant was to have no contact with his son. Shortly before the Hearing, an interim contact order had been made in the Appellant’s favour. That order was made in a Sheriff Court action brought by ...
|
This appeal concerns the right to marry protected by art.12 of the ECHR, one of the articles to which domestic effect is given by the Human Rights Act 1998. More specifically, the appeal concerns the control of that right by the Secretary of State under and pursuant to s.19 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. The agreed issue is whether the scheme established by and under s.19 involves a disproportionate interference with (and therefore a breach of) the art.12 r ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |