Case Summaries

The Court was concerned with an application for a parental order in respect of a child referred to at ‘Z’ who was over a year old. The applicants were the biological father and the gestational surrogate who carried Z.

Knowles J was concerned with a girl, referred to as ‘P’ born in July 2023. An application was made for a parental order pursuant to s54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2009 (paragraph 1).

District Judge Hammond handed down judgment following Father’s (F) application for contact with his three children. The Mother (M) applied for a non-molestation order. An interim non-molestation order was made and extended until the conclusion of proceedings.

A hearing before Nicholas Allen KC (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) considering W’s application for a Legal Services Payment Order (‘LSPO’). W’s second application for Maintenance Pending Suit (‘MPS’) adjourned.

The court was concerned with an application made for a parental order under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, s 54 [‘HFEA 2008’] with respect to a baby girl, ‘A’ who was aged two years old.

In Re AB and CD (Children) [2024] EWHC 3520 (Fam), the High Court considered an application under the 1980 Hague Convention for the return of two boys, AB (14) and CD (9), from England to Ireland.

This was a judgment published by Mr Justice Harrison in the High Court. His lordship was concerned with a child, referred to as ‘C’, born in Nigeria in 2017 and aged 7.

This was a committal judgment concerned with the question outlined in paragraph 1, as to why the respondent ‘should not be committed to prison, or otherwise punished, for failure to comply with a court order dated 17 April 2024, in particular in relation to the paragraphs numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, to provide additional information and documentation in relation to the parties’ and in particular his financial circumstances, such that the court is in a position to determine the financial remedy proceedings’.

Deputy High Court Judge Powell rules that Parental Responsibility Void Ab Initio for Non-Biological Father mistakenly named on Birth Certificate

A judgment of Ms Justice Henke reinforcing the principles highlighted in the CoA case of Re M 2024 and High Court case of LB Enfield 2024, emphasising the need for a thorough welfare evaluation, but most importantly the need for timely determinations, and prioritising the child’s best interests in care proceedings.

This judgment is a continuation of the first judgment which dealt with the issue of a committal following financial remedy proceedings. This aspect of the judgment deals with the issue of sentencing, following upon the judges finding that the respondent was in contempt of court. 

This was an application heard by the district judge for the committal of a respondent to financial remedy proceedings.

The Court of Appeal heard whether it was lawful to anonymise the names of the three judges who presided over historic family proceedings regarding Sara Sharif, a young girl tragically murdered by her father and stepmother in August 2023, and her siblings.

District Judge Gorman ordered indirect contact only for a father who had applied for child arrangements but failed to fully engage in the proceedings.

This was a judgment by Mrs Justice Arbuthnot sitting in the High Court, Family Division. The court was concerned with an urgent application relating to C, who was aged 17. The applicant seeks a declaration that it is lawful and in C’s best interests to be given life-saving insulin medication against her wishes. 

Lord Justice Baker provided the lead judgment in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court rejected the appeal by the father in respect of a committal order made by Peel J.