Jurisdictional issue on appeal as to whether the court has power, where a child maintenance calculation below the maximum assessment is in place, to make a payment for the benefit of the child in respect of legal fees of Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 proceedings and/or other proceedings ( s. 8 proceedings). Held: the court does have jurisdiction.
Appeal by mother against order to disclose sensitive material to father within care proceedings prior to completion of a risk assessment of the consequences of disclosure. Appeal allowed.
Application by father under the Family Law Act 1986, section 5 for stay of Children Act proceedings on the basis that matter should be heard in Scotland, not England. Application granted.
This case is concerned with an application for judicial review in which the Claimant, A, seeks a declaration that the Defendant, The London Borough of Lambeth, had failed to assess A’s needs and to produce a pathway plan as required by The Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001 and further, a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to assess A’s needs and to produce a plan as required by the Regulations.
The issue in the case was whether the Respondent was a parent under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 so that the court had jurisdiction to make an order against her for financial relief. The matter was treated as a preliminary issue prior to the court considering the merits of the application.
Application for permission to appeal against order that there be no fact-finding exercise into child’s death. Application refused.
This case dealt with an application by a Husband pursuant to section 13 of the Matrimonial & Family Proceedings Act 1984 for leave to make an application for financial relief following a Swiss divorce. Application dismissed.
Two linked cases in the Court of Protection. Declarations made that neither patient was being deprived of their liberty.
Application under Schedule 1 to Children Act 1989. Father raised arguments under Brussels I, partially accepted. Application refused.
Cohabitation dispute: The issue on appeal was whether or not the presumption of undue influence was successfully rebutted, and if not rebutted what the consequences are as regards setting aside transactions.
Private law children. An application by mother to relocate to a non Hague Convention country, Indonesia, together with father’s application for shared residence. Permission to relocate refused since mother’s proposals were incompatible with the child’s welfare. Shared residence ordered to reflect the reality of arrangements but over and above that the quality of the relationship between the father and the child, and his commitment.
An appeal in the context of proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal by father against an order that provided for a child to be ‘cared for’ by him at various days and times. Appeal allowed.
Application by local authority to withdraw from proceedings, under FPR r 4.5, for interim care of three children. Local authority ordered to contribute to the costs of the parents.
Appeal against a fact finding decision arising in private law residence and contact proceedings. Appeal allowed.
