Case Summaries

Arbuthnot J determines an application by Barts Health NHS Trust in respect of a 12 year old boy.

This case concerned an application by H for a Reporting Restriction order (‘RRO’) ahead of a final hearing in W’s application for financial remedies.

This judgment concerned the attribution and division of costs following final determination of a W’s needs-based claim in a short and childless marriage.

MacDonald J made an order for the summary return of a child in 1980 Hague Convention proceedings, holding that the child was habitually resident in Malta on the date of his retention and rejecting the father’s “defences”.

Peel J considers the law on the effect of pre-marital cohabitation and engagement on the sharing principle, conduct and the needs principle in a short marriage. He reserved the question of costs.

Appeal of the lower court’s decision not to award the wife monies to meet her liabilities and child care costs

Peel J determined jurisdictional issues in respect of two children who have been living with family members in Libya since August 2020.

Successful appeal against the outcome of a fact-finding hearing held before a district judge in private law proceedings.

The Court was concerned with an application by a journalist, Ms Tickle, relating to care proceedings. The journalist wished to identify and screen an interview with the mother in the care proceedings, Ms Logan, within a BBC Panorama programme in an unanonymised form. The local authority in the care proceedings, Hertfordshire County Council (“HCC”), opposed this, and made a cross application for a Reporting Restriction Order (“RRO”), prohibiting the identification of employees of HCC.

The Court of Appeal dismissed a father’s appeal against findings in care proceedings where criticisms were made of ABE interviews, and the judge had drawn an adverse inference from the father’s failure to attend court to give evidence.

In private law children proceedings in the High Court, Mrs Justice Knowles made case management decisions about the use of intimate images, which she noted as an issue that is increasingly common when allegations of domestic and/or sexual abuse are made and the court is holding a fact-finding hearing. Importantly, she notes that “Sexually explicit or intimate videos and photographs should not be filed as part of evidence without a written application being made to the court in advance” (para 77).

Guidance on the proper approach where there has been a breach of the medical requirements of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005

Mostyn J gives reasons for:
(a) refusing he husband's application for a further legal services payment order; and
(b) Granting the wife’s application to be released from an undertaking that pending determination of the husband's financial claims she would preserve and not deal with, charge or in any way diminish a bank account (credited with £11 million).
(c) Refusing to preserve the parties anonymity.

This matter related to a fact-finding judgment in Children Act proceedings. On 30 July 2021 it was determined that the judgment could be published without anonymising the mother and father concerned. On 10 December 2021, the Court of Appeal gave judgment upholding that decision and dismissing the father’s appeal.

Appeal by a father in private law proceedings who had serious findings (including rape of the mother) made against him. Hayden J rejected his application for protection from the possibility of any admissions or incriminating evidence being used in criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeal (Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Lord Justice Peter Jackson and Lord Justice Baker) dismissed the appeal.