Proof:- On 21 April 2001 the parties married and lived together until 11 October 2005 when they agreed to separate. Thereafter, divorce proceedings were raised and the pursuer sought decree of divorce from the defender on the basis that the marriage had broken down irretrievably on account of the defender's behaviour. The defender did not defend the action on the merits of the cause. Here the court considered that the court had jurisdiction. Following proof in which the court heard evidence of t ...
|
The CA dismissed a mother's appeal against findings of fact made within care proceedings that the mother had been the likely perpetrator of two distinct sets of injuries to the child. The CA gave further guidance on the duties of counsel to raise any alleged deficiency in the judge's reasoning process and any genuine query or ambiguity which arises on the judgment in order to avoid appeal hearings where matters raised could and should be dealt with by the judge at first instance.
|
The CA dismissed a mother's four application for permission to appeal judgments in respect of various aspects of financial provision ordered in respect of the parties' child T. In particular the CA held that it was not open for them to review an award for housing made pursuant to schedule 1 of Children Act 1989 whihc had previously been increased on appeal.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |