Hearing before Peel J to determine W’s without notice application for
leave to apply under s13 of Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) for an order for financial relief after an overseas divorce; and
an order under s46 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (“the LRA 2002”) that a restriction be entered against H’s London property, occupied by W.
This case concerns an application by the Mother to the High Court for permission to appeal aspects of a final order made in contested child arrangements proceedings. The Mother sought to appeal the lower court’s refusal to (1) change the child’s surname from that of the Father to that of the Mother, (2) extend an existing non-molestation order, and (3) make a costs order in her favour.
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the local authority from a refusal to authorise separation of an infant from parents. The appeal concerned an eight-month-old girl, C, born in early April 2025, who is under the care of her parents and living with them at a residential unit.
This is the judgment for an appeal by the Mother against findings of fact in private law proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.
An appeal against duration a s91(14) order in long-running private law proceedings was granted in part by Mr Justice Harrison.
In Re J (A Child) Surrogacy: Adoption Order [2025] EWHC 2960, Ms Justice Henke stated, this case is a cautionary tale of ‘what can go wrong when strangers who meet through social media to bring a child into the world through surrogacy and when one or more of the parties take risks around the circumstances of conception’. In these protracted proceedings due to the parties misleading the court concerning genetic testing, Ms Justice Henke made an adoption order for J, a 2 1/2 year old.
The case concerned competing divorce proceedings between an Egyptian couple, married in Egypt in 1996 under a Christian (Coptic Evangelical) contract, with two adult children.
Application before Ms Justice Henke to commit a father for breaching orders relating to the return of a child from Algeria.
On 17 November 2025, a father’s application for the summary return of his children to the USA was dismissed by Mr Justin Warshaw KC.
Application by H to set aside financial remedies order, claiming he had been unable to attend the hearing remotely, due to technical difficulties. Cross-application by wife to enforce the final order. H’s application was dismissed.
Appeal by mother against care and placement orders. Appeal allowed, and orders set aside.
The Court was concerned with the welfare of one child, ‘AM’. The judgment arises out of an appeal by the father, appealing parts of an order from a FHDRA.
Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Warby refused an application by a psychotherapist, who had given evidence at a fact-finding hearing, for permission to appeal against decisions made by Ms Justice Henke.
This is the costs judgment in an application by Times Media Limited (“TML”) for disclosure of documents relating to previous consent orders made in financial remedies proceedings.
This case is part of long-running private law proceedings concerning 4 children (A, B, C, D), in which there had been findings of abuse by the father and alienating behaviour from the mother. The Court made a s.37 direction, and interim care orders under s.38 for all 4 children.
This case provides an important restatement of the limits of judicial “indications” and a warning of the procedural consequences if overstepped.
