Case Summaries

Case in which the court took the highly unusual and exceptional step of exercising its inherent jurisdiction and revoking an adoption order which had been made following a flawed process, replete with errors and omissions.

Judgment regarding two appeals: a mother’s application to change a child’s surname to her new husband’s surname and the father’s application (under article 21 of the Hague Convention) for contact with the child.

The matter came before Mr Justice Mostyn for a declaration in respect of a Decree Absolute which had been obtained by the parties in 1997.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against an order for disclosure of the parents’ statements and position statements, filed in the early stages of care proceedings, to the police. The leading authority, Re C (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure) [1997] Fam 76 (also reported as Re EC [Disclosure of Materials] [1996] 2 FLR 725) remains fit for purpose and was correctly applied.

The question in this case was whether the wife’s capital claims should be adjourned again or dismissed. There had been proceedings in 2015 in which the capital claims had been adjourned. The court held in 2019 that, despite the passage of time and the need for finality, dismissing the wife’s claim against the background of this case was a matter of last resort. The wife’s capital claims were therefore further adjourned but were to be dismissed unless an application to restore them is made by 31 July 2022.

In this short judgment Mrs Justice Theis granted permission for the applicants to withdraw their application for a parental order under section 54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008). The children’s guardian recommended that the court did not make the parental order initially sought by the applicants due to the absence of certain information required under s.54 HFEA. It was not possible to obtain this information from the applicants as they had stopped engaging with the court proceedings.

An appeal by Anna Timokhina, the mother, in relation to an order that she pay £109,394 in respect of the costs of Alexander Timokhin, the father, incurred during the course of litigation concerning the future arrangements for the care of their children. Considerations in relation to costs principles.

This was an appeal from orders made by HHJ Parry in relation to two children: X (4 years old) and Y (1 year old). The Judge made care orders with a plan for the children to remain placed with their maternal grandparents.

The court determined a child (M) to be habitually resident in England and Wales and that the English court had jurisdiction regarding matters pertaining to parental responsibility

Care proceedings involving a mother with a learning disability, in which MacDonald J comments on the importance of continuity of placement and professionals to vulnerable children in the care system.

Court of Protection case regarding the capacity of a wife to consent to sexual relations with her husband of 27 years.

An application for injuctive relief relating to a Liechtenstein establishment.

Judgment of Mr Justice Moor following financial remedy proceedings in which almost all of the assets were held in Trust funds of which the husband was a beneficiary. The Husband lacked capacity to conduct litigation and was consequently represented by the Official Solicitor. The Court considered the appropriate inferences which could be drawn against the husband as a result of his lack of full and frank disclosure.

Applications for authorisation of care plans, inter alia, for deprivation of liberty [‘DoL’] of restricted patients under ‘Hospital Orders’– applications allowed – Schedule 1A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [‘MCA’], the Mental Health Act 1983 [‘MHA’] and M v Secretary of State for Justice (2018) 3 WLR 1784 considered.

A judgment considering the extent to which an arbitrator can amend an award under section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and how such an amendment can be challenged by the parties to the arbitration.