Summary of an ex-tempore judgment made following application by a health trust for a declaration that it is lawful and in 16-year-olds best interests to receive transfusion of blood in the event that this becomes necessary during surgery for appendicitis.
Application by the husband for relief from sanctions to permit an appeal brought 10 ½ months out of time against a financial remedies order made in January 2025. Relief from sanctions was refused and the appeal was dismissed by Recorder Chandler KC.
MacDonald J declined the husband’s application for Letters of Request and directing that any oral evidence he was required to give at the final hearing should be given directly by remote video link from Russia.
This was an application by the father (F) for an adoption, regarding his son, N, who was born following a surrogacy agreement. Mrs Justice Judd refused the application on the basis that making an adoption order would not serve N’s lifelong welfare.
Mr Justice McKendrick held that a local authority was right to bring an application concerning a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation plan for a profoundly disabled child in its care. The judgment distinguishes between treatment that clinicians will not offer because it is clinically inappropriate and treatment that remains available but requires a best-interests decision.
Mrs Justice Knowles directed publication of an earlier fact-finding judgment in care proceedings concerning the death of a child and permitted the consultant neurosurgeon whose evidence had attracted serious judicial criticism to be named. The decision explains why open justice, professional accountability and the protection of future litigants outweighed the expert’s interests in anonymity.
The Court considered the father’s applications for a “Lives With” and “Spends Time With” Order in relation to the three Children X (aged 15), Y (aged 11 and with a diagnosis of autism) and Z (aged 8). An urgent hearing was listed to deal with the father’s concern of a threat of removal of the children by the mother. This was dismissed with no supporting evidence.
Father’s application for permanent relocation of three children, AA, BA and CA to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”), and the mother’s cross-application for a s91(14) order to restrict the father from making further private law applications.
Application by the “husband” for declaration of marital status, where the parties had undergone a marriage ceremony in Cameroon, in 2008. Held, the ceremony gave rise to a void marriage.
Wife’s applications for interim maintenance and an order for payment in respect of legal services, made within proceedings for financial relief following an overseas divorce. The husband was ordered to pay interim maintenance of £17,000 per month and £90,000 towards the wife’s legal services.
Mr Justice Harrison allowed an appeal on three grounds against a final order made by HHJ Wright who had varied a previous order to reduce periodical payments to W due to a change in H’s net income.
McKendrick J gave an ex tempore judgment in an application to enforce non-compliance with maintenance pending suit and legal service payment orders. A Hadkinson order was made preventing the respondent participating in proceedings until she makes good the payments.
This was the husband’s (“H”) appeal against Garrido J’s decision that the English court had jurisdiction to hear the wife’s (“W”) divorce and financial remedy applications, based on her domicile, and to refuse H’s application for a stay on the grounds that Italy was not shown to be the more appropriate forum. H appealed on seven grounds.
The High Court allowed the Mother’s appeal regarding the Judge’s finding that the Mother had alienated the child, the Judge’s approach in making this finding, and the way evidence from the Mother and her IDVA was treated.
Proceedings arising from the husband’s attempt to dispute the wife’s divorce application.
The applicant wife applied for a further Legal Services Payments Order (“LSPO”), in the context of long-running financial remedy proceedings.
