Case Summaries

Case in which H had had ‘his share’ already by way of informal agreement such that any further award was not now justified despite his business venture having failed and his being left in a predicament of real need.

Consideration of validity of a PNA entered into pre-Radmacher

Considerations arising from a Consent Order made, improperly, in the absence of Form D81

Appeal of a Finding as to Proprietary Estoppel having arisen in respect of a property, ancillary to the main financial proceedings

No freestanding claim for economic loss and no power to award compensation for alleged financial detriment arising from a failure to release a husband from the mortgage on the matrimonial home transferred to the wife.

In surrogacy cases, the court must determine the factual issue of domicile to satisfy HFEA 2008 before making welfare considerations, no matter how strong those welfare arguments may be

The Court of Appeal granted a local authority’s appeal against an order permitting a mother to oppose the making of an adoption order.

Financial Remedy proceedings with consideration of the impact of a Confiscation Order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

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.