The CA considered the vexed question of reviewable dispositions under s37 MCA 1973. Holding that in the instant case a charge over a property to a bank by subsequent purchasers was not a reviewable disposition notwithstanding the Wife's registration of her matrimonial home rights under the FLA 1996.
|
The CA dismissed a Wife's appeal against the dismissal of her application by summons , for an order setting aside ancillary relief orders which had been made in her favour in 2001. The original orders had been made, inter alia, on the basis of protecting the Wife from potential liabilities then thought to be in the region of 14 million pounds to a charity and to the Inland Revenue. The liabilities subsequently were established to be £600,000. The CA held that despite the Husband's undeserve ...
|
In this appeal the CA considered the question as to whether the Judge who has made an order by consent at the conclusion of a successful FDR can then decide subsidiary issues which the parties have subsequently failed to agree. The CA held that where the contract presented to the Judge at conclusion of FDR is incomplete in the sense that there are issues left to be agree or determined by the court in the absence of agreement the dispute must be listed before another judge.
|
In a judgment dismissing an appeal in relation to the police decisions on the protection of the Holy Cross School children Lord Hoffman made comments on the intervention of statutory bodies and NGO's on questions of general public importance noting that this intervention 'is of no assistance if it merely repeats points which the appellant or respondent has already made'.
|
Mr Justice Hedley in a judgment relating to children born under a commercial surrogacy arrangement legal in the Ukraine warned of the perils consequent to the conflict of private international law and noted that where there is a commercial element to the surrogacy, it will usually require careful consideration as to why it should not be transferred to the High Court.
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |