Case Summaries

Appeal of judicial review decision that accommodation being provided to the subject child with severe autism and severe ADHD by the local authority was, by virtue, of a Statement of Special Educational Needs under the Education Act 1996 and not pursuant to the child’s Looked After Child status under the Children Act 1989. Appeal unanimously allowed.

Court of Protection: media attendance and reporting.

Application for permission to appeal against the striking out of a divorce petition on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Application refused.

Child abduction: exercise of discretion to return when defence under Article 12 (settlement) established.

Application to set aside as a sham or pursuant to s 23 Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 two transactions in the context of protracted and complex litigation between the husband, wife and third parties. The first transaction was held to be a sham and the second was set aside under s 23. Mostyn J also considers the piercing of the corporate veil for these purposes.

Application to set aside as a sham or pursuant to s 23 Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 a charge on a former matrimonial home in the context of protracted and complex litigation between the husband, wife and third parties. Application granted under s 23. Application in respect of the sham refused. Two ancillary applications for release of funds and staying of proceedings refused.

A 63 year-old woman applied for disclosure of information from the Registrar General concerning her adopted father’s birth family. Application refused.

Appeal against order of costs judge that where solicitors in matrimonial proceedings refused to carry out work until outstanding fees were paid and the fees were in excess of the estimate, the refusal constituted a repudiation of the contract and no fees were payable. Appeal dismissed.

Husband’s appeal against refusal of leave to pursue an application under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 after Italian divorce. Appeal successful.

Appeal of a ‘no order as to costs’ order despite a successful Part 36 offer in a cohabitant dispute. Appeal unanimously dismissed.

Court of Protection case heard in the High Court in which Macur J considers relief under the inherent jurisdiction alongside provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Appeal against an ancillary relief order of HHJ Raynor QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court on the grounds that subsequent events constituted Barder events and /or demonstrated the order to have been vitiated by a common mistake of fact. Appeal allowed on the latter ground.

Consent order for lump sum to the Wife had been set aside because of the Husband’s non-disclosure. It was then contended by Independent Trustees Services Ltd (“ITS Ltd”) that since the monies had been dishonestly obtained by the Husband, the Wife was no longer a bona fide recipient. Held: ITS Ltd’s application failed and the Wife’s application to set aside an order giving ITS Ltd priority over the Wife as a judgment creditor and to have sums owed to her paid directly by ITS Ltd also failed.

The Court considered the issue as to whether the court on an application for a care order in respect of a young person aged 17 with lifelong disabilities should transfer the case to the Court of Protection to be dealt with under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 rather than the Children Act 1989.

Application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings to claim that a local authority had wrongly determined the Appellant’s age. Permission granted.

Application for permission to appeal the refusal of leave to remove a seven year-old girl, I to go to live in Australia. Application refused.