Case Summaries

Application by Wife (“W”) in financial remedy proceedings for committal of Husband (“H”) for failure to comply with orders to file Form E & CETV for his pension. Contempt proved & H sentenced to 19 days immediate imprisonment.

This was a contested 1980 Hague Convention case heard before Mr Justice Cobb in the High Court.  

This was a challenge under pursuant to Article 23, of the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (“The 1996 Hague Convention”).

This judgment is a decision of Mr Justice McDonald. A cautionary tale, warning professionals, lawyers and the courts against the [relentless] pursuit of further assessments in the face of clear [adverse] forensic evidence, which not only causes prejudicial delay for the child, but also amounts, ultimately, to cruelty masquerading as hope for the parent.

The Court of Appeal determined cross-appeals which concerned determination of (i) whether property is matrimonial and how it might become ‘matrimonialised’ and (ii) how to apply the sharing principle to matrimonialised property.  

A child of 16 was deemed beyond parental control after DM, who had cared for her, developed Alzheimer’s. It was decided that KM should remain in the UK under a care order while the Local Authority would support contact with KM’s previously estranged parents in a non-Hague Convention nation. An order under s.34(3) was not necessary.

The Court of Appeal set aside findings of fact on the basis of errors made by the judge in her approach to the research literature which had been filed, her making findings which went beyond those sought by any party and her treatment of the “wider canvas” points.

These were proceedings heard by HHJ Hayes KC. The application the court was considering was issued in the High Court and concerned one child named CB who was 10 months old

This case concerned proceedings before Mr Justice MacDonald in the High Court.  The judge was concerned with the issue of jurisdiction in care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989. The court was concerned one child referred to as ‘T’ who was represented in the proceedings.

This matter concerns the financial remedies proceedings arising out of the divorce between MR [the wife] and EF [the husband].

Mr Justice Poole determined an application made by the applicant father for the return of 2 children (aged 13 and 7) to Ghana, under the Inherent Jurisdiction. The mother opposed the application. The court allowed the father’s application.

Court of Appeal rules against naming parents in High Court Children Act judgment

This case concerned an appeal as to whether the Judge’s decision at a case management hearing to exclude a mother as a future carer for the child was unjust because of a procedural irregularity.

Mr L. Samuels KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered applications by a mother in care proceedings about a baby for an order pursuant to FPR PD12C dispensing with service of form 6A (notice to non-parties) on the putative father and an order under the inherent jurisdiction to prevent any party from notifying other relatives.

Ms Justice Henke made an order that two children should have indirect contact with their father, imposing a s91(14) order for a limited period to give them some respite from proceedings.

Application for committal of father for breach of orders requiring him to return children from Lebanon. Father sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended for 6 months.  The hearing was conducted in public.