Mr and Mrs Agbaje were married for 38 years. Both Nigerian by birth, they had met in England in the 1960s and acquired UK citizenship in 1972. All five of their children were born (and all but one educated) in England, and in 1975 Mr Agbaje bought a property in England called “Lytton Road” in which their children stayed with a nanny. But for the majority of their married life Mr and Mrs Agbaje lived in Nigeria. They separated in 1999, at which point Mrs Agbaje came to live in Lytt ...
|
The CA granted a Husband permission for a second appeal against orders made in ancillary relief. The court considered that the Husband had an arguable case that the first appeal having been launched in a timely manner should notwithstanding the Barder principles have been a rehearing taking into account updated valuations of the properties involved.
|
The CA dismissed a Father's appeal against the granting of leave to a Mother to remove their children to Slovakia. In giving judgment the CA noted that the decision in Payne v Payne has attracted considerable criticism and did consider whether the instant case was the right case to challenge Payne v Payne in the Supreme Court, concluding however that it was not. The CA also noted that as per the case of Gloucestershire County Council v P. and others [2000] Fam 1 Circuit Judges were bound by the ...
|
The Husband in a high net worth ancillary relief case had unilaterally implemented his open offer to the Wife by transferring the FMH and other assets into her name before proceedings commenced. The Husband's position was that the division was fair and the court ought not to go behind this. The Wife contended that the division was not fair and that the court should re-open this. Whilst ordering a lump sum payment of £7.5million to the Wife in respect of her share in the Husband's business t ...
|
The parents of three children who had been adopted following care proceedings in which each child was removed at birth applied to the court for the removal of injunctions preventing them from talking to the press or publishing information about what they considered to be a miscarriage of justice. The relevant Local Authority cross applied for injunctions restricting the press. The Court noted that the legal framework could be set out simply as it was a matter of balancing the Article 8 and Artic ...
|
Appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 57. In this judgment the Supreme Court reformulates the approach a family court should take when exercising its discretion to decide whether to order a child to give live evidence in family proceedings. In so doing it removes the presumption or starting point of the current test, which is rarely if ever rebutted, that it is only in the exceptional case that a child should be so called.
|
A further judgment in the big money AR matter (previous judgment given on 11.12.2009) dealing with drafting of the order and the outstanding issues of privilege, costs and permission to appeal. The wife was ordered to pay the Husband’s costs on an indemnity basis due to her conduct in irregularly obtaining the Husband’s financial information and to discourage others from following her example. The parties’ applications for permission to appeal were rejected and the Husband’s application for a st ...
|
Munby J (as he then was) gave guidance on the balance to be struck regarding the disclosure of names and details of experts and professionals in Care Proceedings Allowed the application of parents whose child had not been removed as a result of Care Proceedings to “disapply” sections of s.12 (1) (a) Administration of Justice Act 1960. The court also disallowed the applications of the treating physicians and expert witnesses and social workers in the matter for anonymity. The parents had however ...
|
The court made an order for a child’s residence to be transferred from the Mother to the Father. Following the breakdown of direct contact between the Father and child in 2006 the court had ‘left no stone unturned’ to reinstate direct contact but had not succeeded. Notably the child’s guardian was against the transfer however the court found her to be basing this on her own assessment of the Mother rather than accepting the court’s assessment in previous judgments.
|
The CA allowed gave permission to appeal and allowed the appeal of a LA against a finding that the Threshold Criteria had not been met. The CA held that the Judge had failed to give reasons for implicitly rejecting the evidence of two experts in relation to the Mother's mental health. The matter was remitted for re-hearing before a different Judge.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |