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 ...
|
The question in this case is whether it is consistent with Convention rights as defined in s.1(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a couple to be excluded from consideration as adoptive parents of a child on the ground only that they are not married. The woman is the natural mother of the child. The man is not the father but he and the woman have been living together for some years and treat the child as a member of the family. The legal obstacle to their adoption application is art. 14 of t ...
|
The HL allowed an appeal against an order for the summary return of two children to Zimbabwe under the Hague Convention. It was held that the children were settled in the UK in the time before the application for their return had been made. Guidance was given on the policy of the Convention.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 |