Case Summaries

An appeal in which the court deals with “the Family Court's powers to control the distribution of sensitive material and the principles on which such powers should be exercised.” [11]

Application for a financial remedy order in a 33-year marriage, involving the identification of matrimonial and non-matrimonial property.

The case concerned an appeal against a return order made under the 1980 Hague Convention. The appeal mainly centred on the judge’s exercise of his discretion to make a return order, although the father challenged the findings made on the issue of consent.

Matrimonial finance proceedings with a jurisdictional issue resolved in favour of the English court despite previous financial proceedings in Russia. H lost on his assertion that he had transferred most of his wealth to his son from a previous marriage. But H’s substantial assets from property development businesses were determined to be pre-marital. The matter therefore concluded with an award based on need, not on sharing as sought by W.

This is a sad case seeking to raise the alarm about the drastic shortage of regulated placements capable of meeting the welfare needs of children with complex emotional and behavioural needs. The case concerned G who, in Mr Justice MacDonald’s words, is “a highly troubled and vulnerable young woman with multifaceted emotional and behavioural difficulties and at high risk of serious self-harm or suicide”.

A husband’s unsuccessful second appeal in possession proceedings which depended upon the proper interpretation of a Consent Order in financial remedy proceedings.

Mostyn J emphasises the prime criterion of temporal proximity when seeking to establish a causal link for the purposes of relying on residual jurisdiction
The preliminary issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to hear M’s C100 application pursuant to s.8 CA 1989.

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.