Financial Remedy proceedings in which 2 previous Orders had been set aside, in which the Court of Appeal considered whether the limited ‘Kingdon’ approach was appropriate, and ruled whilst such an approach is appropriate in some cases, it was not in the circumstances of this case
Judgment concluding financial remedy proceedings between H (59, Builder) and W (49, Property Consultant) after a marriage from 1994-2018, although in fact the marriage was later established as having been void ab initio as the Wife remained married from a previous relationship. The three ‘children of the marriage’ were all adult and living independently.
Whilst practitioners are more familiar with appeals against the granting of placement orders, this case concerned the somewhat more unusual situation of an appeal against a refusal to grant such an order.
Mrs Justice Lieven gives a timely and helpful reminder of the basic principles that apply to applications for non-molestation orders under the Family Law Act 1996. In particular she stresses the strict criteria for applications made without notice.
This case is in relation to an application under s15 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 brought in late-October 2020. The father in this matter [an investment manager aged 51 whom the Judge described as “immensely wealthy”] lives in the USA, the mother [a university graduate not currently in work, aged 31] lives in the UK with the parties only child, Zoe. The parties were never married, and they separated during the mother’s pregnancy with Zoe with the mother returning to England three months prior to Zoe’s birth. The father has not yet met Zoe.
A lengthy decision of Cobb J in Schedule 1 proceedings concerning a girl aged 2 years 4 months. The child had significant medical needs due to Williams Syndrome, a genetic condition. She was cared for by M (aged 31, of modest means and not presently working) with the assistance of a nanny. F (aged 51) lived in the USA and was an immensely wealthy investment manager.
Mrs Justice Theis allowed an appeal against the outcome of a fact-finding in hearing in which the judge had failed to comply with the court’s duties under Part 3A and PD 3AA of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.
Knowles J was concerned with a child abduction application made under the inherent jurisdiction to return G (11y) to the jurisdiction in which his father lived.
The President provided guidance on the practice to be adopted when court documents need to be served on someone residing at a women’s refuge, pending formal guidance from the Family Procedure Rule Committee.
This was a final hearing in a case concerning two girls, Z (13) and X (11). They had both been made subjects of ICOs on 19.05.22 on the grounds of risk of psychological harm because of alleged ‘parental alienation’.
The Court was concerned with a number of applications and whether it had jurisdiction in respect of subject children.
Appeal from a final decision to make care and placement orders on the grounds of unfairness to the mother after her legal team withdrew at a late stage and an application to adjourn was refused. The Court of Appeal sets out the key legal principle and propositions arising from the relevant authorities.
The CA allowed an appeal against an order to return a child to Australia pursuant to the Hague Convention 1980, concluding that the child would be at grave risk of harm if returned, primarily due to the likely impact on the mother’s mental health.
Hayden J makes orders in the Court of Protection which allows a decree nisi to be granted in divorce proceedings in the Family Court
The court were concerned with a young person “Sam” who at the age of 15 wished to travel abroad to undergo surgery, namely a double mastectomy. The application was made by a local authority who applied for leave to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the young person from travelling to Country “X”. Sam was assigned to the female gender at birth but has lived socially as a boy for some years. The parents and Sam were born in country “X” however they have the right to remain in the UK.
HHJ Vincent sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge determines an application under Part 19 FPR 2010 as to notification of a father without PR about a child, M, placed for adoption.
