The High Court granted a non-molestation injunction on a local authorities ex parte application on behalf of (but without notice being given to) an elderly couple against their son who lived with them. The Local Authority were concerned about the behaviour of the son towards the couple. The injunction was granted under the inherent jurisdiction.
|
In a case concerning the issues of jurisdiction as between England and Wales and Canada the court held that a Mother had accepted the jurisdiction of the English court. It was held that it was in the best interests of the children that the English court should at present retain jurisdiction in relation to all aspects of parental responsibility. The English hearing in respect of contact would proceed with the issue of jurisdiction being treated as a 'rolling consideration'.
|
The High Court ordered the disclosure of an expert's report in a situation where the expert had heard details from one of the parties in confidence. Following a hearing with only counsel present at which the relevant information was disclosed it was agreed that the whole report should be disclosed. The case law on the issue was discussed and the court noted that the balance might fall differently in other honour based violence cases.
|
In a Forced Marriage Protection Order case the court held that special advocates were not required in the instant case and indeed that 'the use of special advocates in forced marriage cases will be rare in the extreme'.
|
The Court of Appeal granted a Mother's application for permission to appeal against an order dismissing her application for leave to oppose the adoption of a child. The adoption hearing was stayed accordingly the court indicating that a change in circumstances had been established and that the second limb being the welfare test should be viewed as posing the question "Is it in the best interests of the child that a not hopeless case for opposition be heard?".
|
The appellant MH, the maternal grandmother of children JY and SY, appealed against decisions of the Children’s Hearing made on 20 August 2010, refusing to regard MH as a relevant person as defined in section 93(2) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and therefore as a person entitled to attend and make representations at Children’s Hearings in respect of her grandchildren. MH also appealed against the decision of the Hearing, continuing a supervision requirement in respect of the ch ...
|
The CA allowed an appeal in relation to a TOLATA 1996 claim on the basis that, inter alia, the significance of the parties having been engaged was not taken into account. The order for sale was stayed and the matter remitted for re-hearing before a different judge.
|
The court upheld the first instance decision that payment to a wife of 75% of the net proceeds of sale from the former matrimonial home was void under s.284 Insolvency Act 1986. The decision was upheld on different grounds the court holding that although the parties were capable of entering a binding agreement on the facts of the case they had not done so.
|
Following a hearing in February 2010 at which a local authority was ordered to pay £100,000 towards the publicly funded costs of the parents the BBC applied for an order setting aside the prohibition on identifying the local authority concerned. As evident from the case name, they were successful. The court holding that the risk of harm to the children from allowing the local authority to be named was low.
|
The petitioner, Aberdeen City Council, sought an order to free the child, C, born 26 March 2007, for adoption under the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. The first respondent, JM, was the mother of C, and had parental rights and responsibilities. The second respondent, AL, was the father of C, and also retained parental rights of responsibilities over said child. JM and AL were additionally the parents of two other children, born in 2005, and 2006; both of these children had subsequently been free ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |