The CA allowed the appeal of a local authority against the refusal of an ICO in circumstances where an ICO had been unopposed in relation to an elder half-sibling of the child KB. The CA held that the judge had seriously understated the harm to the elder child and minimised the risk to KB. The Judge had further not given reasons for departing from the guardian’s recommendation. The CA granted an ICO.
|
The CA considered an appeal in relation to costs arising out of a former son in law’s intervention in ancillary relief proceedings. It had been ordered that the son in law pay the daughter’s costs in relation to these proceedings. These matters had previously been the subject of an appeal from a District Judge to a Circuit Judge. The CA considered the costs rules and held that the costs order had been properly made. The CA however highlighted an error by the Circuit Judge who had stated that per ...
|
The CA granted a mother permission to appeal against a warning notice directed to her which had been attached to a Shared Residence Order. Enforcement proceedings had been commenced.
|
The CA allowed Marco Pierre White’s appeal against the striking out of his claim against his Wife’s ancillary relief solicitors in relation to trespass and conversion of goods. The court considered the “Hildebrand rules” however, as, inter alia, part of the claim related to original documents and documents unrelated to financial matters including a letter from Mr White’s daughter the CA held that the claim should be allowed to proceed.
|
The CA allowed a Mother’s appeal against a judge’s refusal of permission to instruct an expert to carry out an independent risk assessment where a fact finding hearing in care proceedings had not ruled her out as a perpetrator of non-accidental injuries. The CA held that in comments at the conclusion of the fact finding judgment and in case management directions the Judge had prejudged the ultimate outcome of the case which had influenced her decision in relation to the risk assessment. The CA a ...
|
The CA allowed a Mother’s appeal against an order transferring residence of children to the Father. The CA emphasised that such orders were orders of last resort and that in the instant the trial judge was misled into regarding as assessment of the Mother’s true position as the crucial issue. The true issue was the risk of moving the children as against the risk of confirming them, but subject to a very clear contact order.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |