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.
|
The CA allowed an appeal against a committal order. There was no penal notice on the order which was said to have been breached. The CA observed that the formalities of committal proceedings should be strictly observed, particularly so in a case where the order itself was unusual and the parties were not English and one was in person. The CA also commented on the undesirability of making orders which would prevent a Turkish court from having all the information available to the English court.
|
The court in Hague Convention proceedings declined to order the return of a 13 year old child to Portugal despite a finding of wrongful retention on the grounds of the child's objections to return.
|
In the opening round of a 'big money' ancillary relief case the court in a lengthy judgment considered the case law in relation to Hildebrand documents. It was ordered that the Wife's solicitors deliver up to the husband's solicitors seven files of documents obtained by the Wife's brother from the Husband's computer for them to identify and remove those pages said to contain privileged material. The Husband solicitors were to preserve and hold any privileged material pending the determination of ...
|
The Court allowed the application of a Mother within Care proceedings that a Father (who had been kept unaware of care proceedings due to the high risk he posed to the Mother and children) be discharged from the proceedings and have no involvement or knowledge of them. Submissions were heard from an advocate to the court provided via the Attorney General. The court considered the competing rights of the Mother, Father and children and concluded that on the facts of the case the exclusion of the ...
|
The court allowed the application of an older sibling ('C') to be joined to Hague Convention proceedings involving her younger brother. There were issues of domestic violence within the case and C's case was that her Mother had been unable to protect herself and her brother from the father's behaviour. It was held that she should be joined under FPR Rule 6.5(e) "any other person who appears to the court to have a sufficient interest in the welfare of the child".
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |