Case Summaries

This case concerned an application for a financial remedy brought by IU, a wife (‘W’), against OS, her husband (‘H’).

Appeal against findings of sexual abuse on the basis of allegations made by a child for the first time at age nine about incidents that had happened some 4-5 years previously upheld.

This was a 2nd appeal in a financial provision case. Moylan LJ gave the only substantive judgment. The appeal was dismissed.

Judgment handed down by Mr Justice Cobb on 22nd January 2021

MacDonald J in the High Court, Family Division:

(1) dismissed a prohibited steps order application preventing Roman Catholic sacraments for children ages 4-11 in a proposed Special Guardianship setting, and

(2) adjourned an application for a declaration on their legal status (for purposes of eventually determining the local authority’s obligation to pay remuneration), pending involvement in the question from both local authorities (Norfolk and Suffolk).

Applications pursuant to Part 19 FPR 2010 within adoption proceedings to determine whether the local authority is under a duty to notify the Romanian Central Authority of the proceedings and if not, should their assistance be sought to identify the birth father and wider family.

Application by Local Authority for orders under FPR Part 19 r14.21 and inherent jurisdiction to endorse decision not to disclose a child’s existence to his father and maternal family dismissed. Court critical of delay in applications

Mr Justice Hayden’s detailed judgment, making extensive findings of coercive and controlling behaviour, underlines the need for the court to assess a pattern or series of acts cumulatively.

Case Summary coming soon

A wife’s successful appeal from an order allowing a husband’s appeal against a maintenance pending suit order.

Successful application for indemnity costs on preliminary issues in financial remedy proceedings when allegations of fraud and conspiracy were withdrawn and claims discontinued shortly before the trial.

The Court considered an application by a ‘Police Force’ for disclosure of psychological reports prepared in relation to AB who was and is the subject of proceedings in the Court of Protection and who is an immensely vulnerable person.