Case Summaries

Application by a father acting in person for permission to appeal the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of HMCTS’s failure to issue his application to set aside final child arrangements orders. No application for permission had been made under a subsisting s.91(14) order and a judge had already found that the court lacked jurisdiction. Permission to appeal was refused and certified totally without merit.

Pre-trial review in Part III financial remedy proceedings. MacDonald J refused the wife permission to adduce a forensic accountant’s report, admitted further evidence on Russian law and gave directions on disclosure, affidavits and attendance at the final hearing.

MacDonald J refused the wife’s application to continue anti-anti-suit, anti-enforcement and anti-reliance injunctions. Although England had sufficient interest in the proceedings, she had not established to the requisite high standard that the husband’s conduct was unconscionable or vexatious and oppressive.

The court was concerned with the welfare of A (aged 15 years and 5 months at the time of publishing). A had been subject to a previous set of proceedings when they were 13, which concluded on 16 December 2025 with an order that A live with both parents. The order provided for a stepped arrangement based on an alternating weekend term time pattern, shared holidays and mid-week contact.

Macdonald J dismissed the Mother’s application for a Hadkinson order to stay the Father’s appeal against a final order made in child arrangements proceedings until he paid a £26,000 costs order. Macdonald J held that none of the Hadkinson criteria were met, giving particular consideration to the additional welfare criterion applied in cases concerning children in accordance with the Children Act 1989.

The father (“F”) applied for the summary return of K, aged four, to France under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, which incorporates the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother (“M”) opposed the application under Articles 12 and 13(b).

The court ordered the return of CDG to Germany under the 1980 Hague Convention, notwithstanding the child’s refugee status in the UK. It held that refugee status does not create an absolute bar to removal to a safe third country, provided that the principle of non-refoulement is respected.

Appeal against a final order relating to four children aged 14, 11, 9 and 6.  The M brought an appeal against a final decision that, amongst other things, would allow the F to spend time with the children on a supervised basis, and the making of a s.91(14) order against both parties. Importantly, this was the first appeal from the Child Focused Court to reach the Court of Appeal.

This concerned the father’s (“F’s”) application for contact with his daughter, S, following her relocation from England to Sweden.

This judgment dealt with whether information previously withheld from the parents during forced marriage protection order proceedings concerning the same children should also remain undisclosed in the related care proceedings.

The court at FHDRA dismissed the mother’s application for a child arrangements order, ordered that the child live with the father and have no contact with the mother.

Mother’s application to stop all contact with child by their father, who had previously been found to have subjected mother to extreme emotional and psychological abuse.

A case concerning an application for a declaration pursuant to section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 by an unregulated sperm donor, and an application for a declaration of non-parentage with respect of another male (‘EF’) registered on the birth certificate of N.

The father sought the return of two children to Egypt. The mother opposed return and alleged that he had subjected her and the older child to domestic abuse.

The father was awarded £12,000, inclusive of VAT, after the mother’s challenge to a child arrangements arbitration determination was dismissed at triage. Although the usual protective approach to costs in children proceedings continued to apply, the court found that she had acted unreasonably by pursuing an unmeritorious quasi-appeal against a comprehensive decision the parties had chosen to obtain.

In proceedings concerning a 20-year-old woman (AC) who had undergone an Islamic marriage ceremony (Nikah) in Pakistan, the immediate issue for the court was whether AC had the capacity to consent to participating in a capacity assessment requested by the defendants in related criminal proceedings for forced marriage under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 s.121.