Financial remedy proceedings, in which the wife agreed a consent order that prevented her from discharging loans of £1 million owed to a litigation loan funder, and the funder was joined to proceedings. Inconsistent communications between the parties, the intervenor, the allocated judge, and the Court complicated matters significantly.
The Court of Appeal (Vos MR, McFarlane P, King LJ) allowed an appeal against the outcome of a fact-finding hearing in private law proceedings and gave general guidance about the approach to such hearings in light of Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448.
Application to appeal of a refusal of an application for costs
A “shocking” case in which MacDonald J refused to authorise a deprivation of liberty of a child, describing her current situation as “brutal and abusive” and considering that she had been comprehensively failed by Manchester City Council and the NHS Trust.
Decision of HHJ Hess in which he clarifies the principles to be applied in cases concerning loans to/from family members.
Sir Jonathan Cohen made an order for a further lump sum to the applicant at a second rehearing following non-disclosure by the respondent
The Court of Appeal (McFarlane P, LJJs Peter Jackson and Nicola Davies) allowed an appeal against care and placement for adoption orders where the judge had failed to engage properly with the oral evidence and had conducted a linear analysis, discounting the parents before going on to consider the application for a placement order.
H and W have two children. The family had lived a 'very affluent' life between the UK and Switzerland, supported almost entirely by H's family money. Mr Justice Peel considered the weight to be attached to a pre-marital agreement, a post-marital agreement, family wealth and prospective inheritance in determining the appropriate financial award division of assets.
On 9th March the President of the Family Division handed down judgment in this case. The question for the court was whether the final welfare judgment of December 2021 should be published. This concerned the conclusion of long running wardships proceedings involving the parties two children aged 14 and 10.
This decision of Mrs Justice Morgan concerns an application for authorisation of medical treatment by two health trusts, cooperating over the care of a 17 year old child, described in the judgment as Amy (presumably a pseudonym).
This application came before Mostyn J. The mother (RL) sought a rehearing of a fact-finding that took place 5 ½ years ago on 13-17 June 2016 in relation to her then 6 month old daughter, C [1-2]. The Recorder had found on the balance of probabilities that a bruise to C’s right cheek, left cheek, and a fracture to her 7th posterior left rib were inflicted by either her mother or stepfather (DS) [2].
Mostyn J considers the approach to be taken by a court when considering an application for maintenance pending suit and in particular the issue where the paying party has not provided satisfactory disclosure or explanation of their financial position.
Judd J refused an application for a reporting restrictions order which would prevent the reporting the names of parents and a deceased sibling in a criminal trial for the murder of the sibling on the basis of the impact on G who was subject to care proceedings. The injunction was granted to prevent the reporting of G’s existence as a member of the family.
A judgment determining an application for Maintenance Pending Suit and a Legal Services Payment Order, tried on the basis of submissions in the absence of full financial disclosure.
A Judgment from Mr Justice Peel on Hague Convention return orders, the defences of consent and acquiescence and the law on habitual residence.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Snowden) refuse an appeal against a fact-finding judgment in which a Recorder made findings that went beyond those sought by the local authority.
