Case Summaries

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.

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.