The CA dismissed a Husband's appeal against the making of an occupation order removing him from a home which had been in his family for several generations in circumstances where no actual violence had been alleged by the wife. The CA held that the judge had been entitled to make the occupation order under s.33 (6) given that the separation of Husband and Wife was necessary and that the Husband had ready access to alternative accommodation. The Husband was said to have assets of about £10 millio ...
|
Mr Justice Ryder adjourned the final hearing in a Father's application under Brussels II Revised. The Mother had not participated in the proceedings and had repeatedly sought to avoid service. The adjournment was expressed to be a final adjournment to enable the Mother to attend and provide welfare information. International Liaison judges and Central Authorities were to be asked to assist in effecting service on the Mother.
|
The CA allowed an appeal on behalf of a LA against a Judge's finding that the s.31(2) CA 1989 Threshold Criteria had not been crossed in relation to the younger of two sisters who had been born during the care proceedings in relation to the older sister. The Mother had previously conceded that threshold had been crossed in relation to the older child. The CA substituted their decision that threshold had been crossed and made an ICO in relation to the younger sister.
|
Mr Justice Munby gave a further judgment in relation to costs arising from ancillary relief proceedings (previous judgment re costs at [2009 1 FLR 1036]) between a father-in -law and wife. It was held that the father-in-law had been justified in seeking injunctive relief to ensure the wife did not dispose of assets without first paying the costs due to him and that the costs of obtaining the injunctive order should be borne by the wife.
|
The CA refused permission to appeal against an order directing her GP to supply medical records to an appointment psychologist to a Mother acting in person in contact proceedings. Given that the Mother had not sought to challenge the original order appointing a psychologist or the orders directing her to disclose her medical records but only challenged the order directed at her GP the CA held that none of her grounds of appeal had any prospect of success.
|
The CA considered the issue of the impact on a 15 year old of discharging a care order and whether a judge was wrong to have done this without considering the future impact of the leaving care provisions. The CA held that given the child in question had been living with his mother for at least six months before the discharge application was heard the leaving care provisions did not in fact apply to his situation (Reg 4 (5)).
|
On 6 February 2008 a decision was made at a Children's Hearing for East Renfrewshire in respect of a child, MM, who was born on 13 November 2006. The mother of MM, SK, appealed aginst the decision of the Authority Reporter for East Renfrewshire under the provisions of section 51 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. During the appeal before the Sheriff two devolution issues were raised on behalf of the appellant and the Sheriff referred the devolution issues under and in terms of Paragraph 7 of S ...
|
The CA allowed the appeal of a husband against a judgment in favour of the Wife that Barder principles were engaged where the value of shares owned by him dramatically increased after a consent order settling the parties Ancillary Relief claims had been entered into. The CA held that Barder principles did not apply to the case where the Wife was aware that the value of the shares was likely to increase. The CA inter alia stated that I v I (Ancillary Relief: Disclosure) [2008] EWHC 1167(Fam); [20 ...
|
The CA granted permission to appeal and allowed an appeal against a case management decision in respect of Care proceedings taking place in the High Court. The CA overturned the refusal to permit the instruction of a paediatric pathologist to review a post mortem on a child. The court re-emphasised it's ability to act on a urgent basis where necessary and urged the profession to utilise this in cases which require an urgent response.
|
The CA considered the issue of disclosure to the police of concessions made within care proceedings as to the causation of severe head injuries to a child. The trial judge had refused the application of the Chief Constable for disclosure of the concession document and others. The CA allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the County Court for further consideration on the grounds the Judge had not been referred to the revocation of Rule 4.23 of the FPR 1991 and its replacement by Rule 10.2 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |